Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Rick D. Steinberg
Citation: 2007 WI 113
Docket Number: 2006AP000794-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 27, 2007

1 
2007 WI 113 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP794-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Rick D. Steinberg, Attorney at Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Appellant, 
     v. 
Rick D. Steinberg, 
          Respondent-Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STEINBERG 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 27, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: BUTLER, Jr., J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 113
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP794-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Rick D. Steinberg, Attorney at Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Rick D. Steinberg, 
 
          Respondent-Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 27, 2007 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
appeals a referee's recommendation that Attorney Rick D. 
Steinberg be publicly reprimanded for eight counts of misconduct 
stemming from a number of trust account violations.  The referee 
also recommends that Attorney Steinberg be subject to quarterly 
reporting on his trust account for two years, attend at least 
six hours of continuing legal education (CLE) pertaining to 
trust account practices, provide 100 hours of pro bono legal 
No. 
2006AP794-D   
 
2 
 
work and pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.  The sole 
issue on appeal is the level of discipline. 
¶2 
This court approves the referee's findings of fact and 
conclusions of law and adopts them.  We conclude that a public 
reprimand is the appropriate level of discipline, together with 
the imposition of costs of this disciplinary proceeding, the 
requirement of six hours of CLE training pertaining to trust 
account practices and the two year trust account reporting 
requirement.  We do not impose the recommended 100 hours of pro 
bono legal work.   
¶3 
Attorney Steinberg has had a general solo practice in 
Brookfield since 2003.  He has not been subject to prior 
discipline. 
¶4 
The 
OLR 
filed 
a 
disciplinary 
complaint 
against 
Attorney Steinberg on April 5, 2006, asserting nine counts of 
misconduct arising from trust account violations.  Following a 
hearing, the referee issued his report October 16, 2006, 
concluding that the OLR proved misconduct of all but Count 7.  
¶5 
Counts 1—5 involve client A.G., who hired Attorney 
Steinberg to represent him in a personal injury claim.  On 
March 22, 2002, A.G. signed a contract with Attorney Steinberg, 
agreeing to an attorney fee reflecting one-third of the gross 
settlement of the claim, with A.G. receiving the net balance 
after disbursements for medical bills and other costs.  The case 
settled for $20,000 and Attorney Steinberg received his $6600 
fee.  He disbursed the balance to his client, less $2024.25 
potentially owed to a subrogated party.   
No. 
2006AP794-D   
 
3 
 
¶6 
Subsequently, the potential subrogation lien claim for 
$2024.25 was not pursued.  In October 2003, rather than 
disbursing this entire amount to his client, Attorney Steinberg 
disbursed $1389.75 to his client via a trust account check.  
Attorney Steinberg disbursed $684.50 to himself via a trust 
account check and deposited this sum into his business account.  
Issuing the trust account check to himself and depositing it 
into his business account gave rise to Count 1, charging 
Attorney Steinberg with failing to hold funds in trust and 
commingling trust funds with his own, contrary to former SCR 
20:1.15(a)(effective through June 30, 2004).1   
¶7 
Counts 2—4 involve earlier trust account violations 
with A.G.'s settlement funds.  During March 2003, when Attorney 
Steinberg's trust account held A.G.'s $2024.25 in settlement 
funds, Attorney Steinberg issued to himself an unnumbered check 
in the sum of $1000.  His business account showed a deposit of 
$1061.42 the same day.  By April 17, 2003, his business account 
                                                 
1 Former SCR 20:1.15(a) applies to misconduct committed 
prior to July 1, 2004.  It provided in pertinent part:  
 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from 
the lawyer's own property, that property of clients 
and third persons that is in the lawyer's possession 
in connection with a representation or when acting in 
a fiduciary capacity.  Funds held in connection with a 
representation or in a fiduciary capacity include 
funds held as trustee, agent, guardian, personal 
representative of an estate, or otherwise.  All funds 
of clients and third persons paid to a lawyer or law 
firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable 
trust accounts . . . . 
No. 
2006AP794-D   
 
4 
 
had a negative balance of $75.18.  Count 2 alleges that by 
issuing a trust account check of $1000 to himself, Attorney 
Steinberg converted such funds to his own purposes, thus 
engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, 
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c).2  Count 4 alleges that by disbursing 
to himself the $1000 in trust account funds and depositing them 
into his business account, Attorney Steinberg failed to hold 
funds in trust and commingled trust funds contrary to former SCR 
20:1.15(a)(effective through June 30, 2004).   
¶8 
The OLR complaint also alleges that on July 7, 2003, 
Attorney Steinberg issued a trust account check, numbered 905, 
which included at least $1000 of A.G.'s trust account funds, and 
deposited it into his business account.  Attorney Steinberg's 
July 2003 business account statement revealed that his business 
account had been overdrawn since the end of June 2003 and had 
been incurring overdraft fees.  Before the July 7 deposit, the 
business account had a negative balance of $553.59.  After the 
deposit and other transactions, the account had a positive 
balance until the next day, when the account was completely 
depleted and overdrawn by $462.79.  These allegations form the 
basis for Counts 3 and 5, alleging violations of SCR 20:8.4(c), 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 
former SCR 20:1.15(a)(effective through June 30, 2004) for 
                                                 
2 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. 
2006AP794-D   
 
5 
 
failing to hold funds in trust and commingling trust account 
funds with his own.   
¶9 
Count 6 involves $4070 in settlement funds received by 
Attorney Steinberg's client, D.M-F.  The OLR complaint alleges 
Attorney Steinberg deposited this settlement amount in his trust 
account on or about October 1, 2003.  The settlement check was 
returned on October 6, 2003, due to an improper endorsement 
resulting in a $731.15 trust account overdraft.   Also on 
October 6, Attorney Steinberg disbursed a $2000 trust account 
check, numbered 920, to his law office account, increasing the 
trust 
account 
overdraft. 
 
On 
October 
9, 
2003, 
D.M-F.'s 
settlement check, properly endorsed, was re-deposited into the 
trust account, restoring the balance to a positive $1333.85.   
¶10 The OLR complaint alleges that $2000 of D.M-F.'s 
settlement funds were not held in trust to the extent they cured 
an overdraft, $2000 of which was caused by Attorney Steinberg's 
deposit of check numbered 920 into his business account.  Count 
6 alleges that by this action, Attorney Steinberg failed to hold 
funds in trust and commingled client funds with his own in his 
business account, contrary to former SCR 20:1.15(a)(effective 
through June 30, 2004). 
¶11 Count 
7 
alleges 
that 
Attorney 
Steinberg 
made 
misrepresentations to the OLR in response to its inquiry as to 
why he deposited $2000 from his trust account into his business 
account on July 7, 2003, when his business account had been 
overdrawn for two weeks and incurring overdraft fees.  Attorney 
Steinberg indicated that he had been confused and this had been 
No. 
2006AP794-D   
 
6 
 
the first time he had dealt with funds unclaimed by a subrogated 
carrier.  The OLR alleged, however, that because Attorney 
Steinberg needed money on July 7, 2003, his explanation to the 
OLR was false, violating SCR 20:8.4(f)3 and SCR 22.03(6).4 
¶12 Count 8 alleges that Attorney Steinberg violated 
former SCR 20:1.15(e)(iii), (iv) and (v)(effective through June 
30, 2004)5 by failing to maintain an appropriate subsidiary 
ledger, a monthly schedule of the subsidiary ledger and a 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:8.4(f) states that 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." 
4 SCR 22.03(6) provides that "In the course of the 
investigation, 
the 
respondent's wilful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
5 Former SCR 20:1.15(e) provides in relevant part: 
 
(e) Complete records of trust account funds and 
other trust property shall be kept by the lawyer and 
shall be preserved for a period of at least six years 
after termination of the representation.  Complete 
records shall include: . . . (iii) a subsidiary ledger 
containing a separate page for each person or company 
for whom funds have been received in trust, showing 
the date and amount of each receipt, the date and 
amount of 
each disbursement, and any unexpended 
balance, (iv) a monthly schedule of the subsidiary 
ledger, indicating the balance of each client's 
account at the end of each month, (v) a determination 
of the cash balance (checkbook balance) at the end of 
each month, taken from the cash receipts and cash 
disbursement journals and a reconciliation of the cash 
balance (checkbook balance) with the balance indicated 
in the bank statement. 
No. 
2006AP794-D   
 
7 
 
checkbook with a running balance, thus failing to keep complete 
records of trust account funds.  Count 9 alleges that Attorney 
Steinberg filed certificates with the State Bar of Wisconsin 
falsely indicating that he was complying with each of the 
record-keeping 
requirements 
set 
forth 
in 
SCR 
20:1.15(e), 
contrary to former SCR 20:1.15(g)(effective through June 30, 
2004).6  Based on these nine counts, the OLR sought a six-month 
license suspension. 
¶13 Following a hearing, the referee found that the facts 
supported Counts 1—6 and 8—9.  The referee concluded that the 
OLR 
failed 
to 
prove 
that 
Attorney 
Steinberg 
made 
a 
misrepresentation to the OLR as alleged in Count 7 and dismissed 
this count.  
¶14 The referee made a number of findings with respect to 
the level of discipline.  The referee found that Attorney 
Steinberg's misconduct arising out of A.G.'s settlement funds 
resulted in no loss to the client, and that Attorney Steinberg 
                                                 
6 Former 
SCR 
20:1.15(g) 
provided 
in 
relevant 
part:  
Safekeeping property. 
 
(g) A member of the State Bar of Wisconsin shall 
file with the State Bar annually, with payment of the 
member's State Bar dues or upon such other date as 
approved by the Supreme Court, a certificate stating 
whether the member is engaged in the private practice 
of law in Wisconsin and, if so, the name of each bank, 
trust company, credit union or savings and loan 
association in which the member maintains a trust 
account, safe deposit box, or both, as required by 
this section.  Each member shall explicitly certify 
therein that he or she has complied with each of the 
record-keeping requirements . . . . 
No. 
2006AP794-D   
 
8 
 
had repaid his client the one-third fee he erroneously paid to 
himself from the $2024.25.  The referee stated: 
This appears to be a case in which the personal 
observation 
of 
Steinberg 
at 
the 
hearing 
is 
significant.  Steinberg did appear confused.  When the 
offenses occurred, he was new to solo practice and had 
not had any personal involvement with an attorney 
trust account.  He was a late in life law student (age 
about 34) after having post college jobs first in 
Milwaukee with Northwestern Mutual and then in New 
Orleans 
as 
a 
manager 
of 
a 
Wendy's 
fast 
food 
restaurant, then as a kitchen manager at a Hyatt Hotel 
and then at a store that rented for purchase personal 
property.  He attended law school [] at Thomas Cooley 
Law School in Lansing, Michigan.  He had graduated 
from college about 11 or 12 years earlier at UW 
LaCrosse.  Steinberg then worked at his father's law 
office for about seven years.  He then started his own 
low cost sole practice in about 2003.  His financial 
records left much to be desired but he did not appear 
to have an evil motive in his handling of funds.  He 
kept 
his 
client, 
[A.G.], 
informed 
of 
what 
was 
happening in terms of trying to pay a medical 
provider.  With the second client involved in the 
matter, [D.M-F.], he may have been too diligent.  He 
gave her a check for her share of settlement before 
the insurance company check had cleared the bank.  
Both matters then caused him problems. 
He did clearly transfer trust funds to his 
business account, overdrew his trust account and take 
an unearned fee re: [A.G.] (which was returned and 
paid to the client). 
¶15 The referee concluded that due to a number of 
mitigating factors, some of which the OLR did not dispute, a 
public reprimand was appropriate.  The referee noted the 
following mitigating factors: (1) Attorney Steinberg's expressed 
remorse; (2) the lack of harm to clients; (3) no previous 
professional discipline; (4) while some counts were very 
serious, others were technical in nature and had been corrected; 
No. 
2006AP794-D   
 
9 
 
(5) Attorney Steinberg's timely efforts to rectify the matters; 
(6) little likelihood of repeated misconduct; and (7) Attorney 
Steinberg's cooperation with the OLR.  The referee concluded 
that a public reprimand, quarterly trust account reporting to 
the OLR for two years, six hours of CLE approved trust account 
training, 100 hours of pro bono legal service, together with 
paying the costs of the disciplinary proceeding, was appropriate 
discipline.  
¶16 It is the referee's function to assess credibility of 
witnesses.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 
2005 WI 40, ¶53, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910.  Here, there 
is no claim that the referee's fact findings are clearly 
erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 
2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.  This court 
adopts the referee's credibility assessment and fact findings.  
This 
court 
independently 
reviews 
the 
referee's 
legal 
conclusions.  Id.  Because the referee's legal conclusions are 
reasonable and consistent with existing law, this court adopts 
them as well.  The level of discipline is the only disputed 
issue on appeal. 
¶17 The OLR argues that the referee failed to consider the 
seriousness of the misconduct, which includes dishonesty and 
conversion, along with the trust account violations.  The OLR 
points out that Attorney Steinberg's multiple offenses reflect a 
pattern of misconduct.  It argues that Attorney Steinberg's 
actions were motivated by dishonesty and selfishness rather than 
confusion.  It states that the violations are serious and that 
No. 
2006AP794-D   
 
10 
 
Attorney 
Steinberg 
should 
be 
required 
to 
petition 
for 
reinstatement.  See SCR 22.28(3).7 
¶18 The OLR relies on a number of cases imposing license 
suspensions, including In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Edgar, 
230 
Wis. 2d 
205, 
601 
N.W.2d 
284 
(1999); 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Trowbridge, 177 Wis. 2d 485, 
501 N.W.2d 452 (1993), and In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Bordow, 148 Wis. 2d 464, 435 N.W.2d 232 (1989).  The OLR 
argues 
that 
public 
reprimand 
cases 
should 
be 
factually 
distinguished because they involve small amounts of money, poor 
record-keeping, or neglect, but not conversion.  The OLR 
contends the gravity of the misconduct, as well as the need to 
protect the public interest and preserve the integrity of the 
profession, necessitate a six-month license suspension. 
¶19 Attorney Steinberg responds that the referee properly 
considered mitigating factors.  He notes this was the first 
occasion he had to deal with unclaimed trust account funds.  He 
points to the considerable evidence attesting to his good 
character and civic contributions.  He argues that the record 
demonstrates his confusion and supports the referee's finding he 
lacked evil intent.  While he agrees his record-keeping was 
rudimentary and not compliant with the rules, he contends his 
errors were caused by his misunderstandings.  He concedes his 
                                                 
7 SCR 22.28(3) states:  License reinstatement.  "The license 
of an attorney that is revoked or suspended for misconduct for 
six months or more shall be reinstated pursuant to the procedure 
set forth in SCR 22.29 to 22.33 and only by order of the supreme 
court." 
No. 
2006AP794-D   
 
11 
 
admitted confusion does not excuse his violations, and points 
out he has taken legal education courses to correct his 
misunderstanding of the trust account rules.  He emphasizes no 
client was harmed, as he had repaid his obligations to his 
clients.  Attorney Steinberg contends that the suspension cases 
the OLR relies upon are more egregious than his and a public 
reprimand is consistent with case law.  
¶20 Ultimately, it is this court's responsibility, rather 
than the referee's, to determine the appropriate level of 
discipline.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Reitz, 
2005 WI 39, ¶74, 279 Wis. 2d 550, 694 N.W.2d 894.  This court 
considers the seriousness of the misconduct, the need to protect 
the public, the courts, and the legal system from repetition of 
misconduct, 
the 
need 
to 
impress 
upon 
the 
attorney 
the 
seriousness of the misconduct, and the need to deter other 
attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.  See Arthur, 2005 
WI 40, ¶78. 
¶21 The OLR correctly observes that the misconduct here is 
serious and demonstrates the need to protect the public and 
deter attorneys from similar misconduct.  See id.  However, we 
disagree with the OLR that the misconduct, together with the 
mitigating factors, support a six-month license suspension.  We 
agree with Attorney Steinberg that cases cited by the OLR 
involve more egregious facts.  For example, in contrast to the 
Bordow and Trowbridge cases, Attorney Steinberg has not been 
previously 
disciplined. 
 
Also, 
the 
Edgar 
case 
may 
be 
distinguished as it involved the attorney's misrepresentation to 
No. 
2006AP794-D   
 
12 
 
opposing counsel regarding the withdrawal and use of some 
$10,000 from an escrow account.  See Edgar, 230 Wis. 2d at 207. 
¶22 Here, as the OLR notes, Attorney Steinberg admitted 
for the most part the facts alleged in the OLR complaint.  He 
was found to have cooperated with the OLR.  Also, the referee 
assessed weight to Attorney Steinberg's explanation that his 
trust account violations were due to a lack of understanding 
rather than evil intent.  It is within the referee's role as 
arbiter of the weight and credibility to do so.  Arthur, 2005 WI 
40, ¶53.   
¶23 We are persuaded that the record demonstrates Attorney 
Steinberg understands the seriousness of his misconduct and it 
will likely not recur.  Other mitigating factors include 
Attorney Steinberg's lack of prior discipline, his demonstrated 
remorse, and his steps to rectify his handling of trust account 
funds and to ensure compliance with trust account rules.  We 
note that no client has suffered loss.  In view of these 
circumstances, we are satisfied that a public reprimand, 
together with quarterly trust account reporting for a two year 
period and a minimum of six hours of CLE approved trust account 
training achieves lawyer discipline objectives.  We also impose 
full costs over Attorney Steinberg's objection.  In view of 
these sanctions, we conclude it is unnecessary to impose the 100 
hours of pro bono legal work recommended by the referee.  We do 
not impose that requirement.  
No. 
2006AP794-D   
 
13 
 
¶24 Attorney Steinberg has filed an objection to the 
imposition of costs.8  The assessment of full costs on the 
disciplined lawyer is consistent with our practice under the 
rules in existence when this discipline action was commenced, 
namely that the general policy is that upon a finding of 
misconduct it is appropriate to impose all costs, including the 
expenses of counsel for the OLR upon the disciplined lawyer.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Konnor, 2005 WI 37, 
¶¶37-92, 279 Wis. 2d 284, 694 N.W.2d 376 (Abrahamson, C.J., 
concurring).   
¶25 This disciplinary action was filed April 5, 2006.  
This court amended the rules relating to the assessment of costs 
in lawyer disciplinary proceedings on May 1, 2006.  See S.Ct. 
Order 05-01, 2006 WI 34, 287 Wis. 2d xiii, 714 N.W.2d Ct.R-21 
(May 1, 2006).  The new rules do not apply to the present case; 
they apply "prospectively to disciplinary proceedings, medical 
incapacity proceedings, or reinstatement proceedings filed on or 
after July 1, 2006."9  Accordingly, in view of our decision to 
                                                 
8 The OLR filed a statement of costs totaling $11,763.47.  
Of that total, $3002.95 represents appellate costs.   
9 Effective July 1, 2006, SCR 22.24 provides:  Assessment of 
costs. 
(1)  The supreme court may assess against the 
respondent all or a portion of the costs of a 
disciplinary proceeding in which misconduct is found, 
a medical incapacity proceeding in which it finds a 
medical incapacity, or a reinstatement proceeding and 
may enter a judgment for costs.  The director may 
assess 
all 
or 
a 
portion 
of 
the 
costs 
of 
an 
investigation when discipline is imposed under SCR 
No. 
2006AP794-D   
 
14 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
22.09.  Costs are payable to the office of lawyer 
regulation. 
(1m)  The court's general policy is that upon a 
finding of misconduct it is appropriate to impose all 
costs, including the expenses of counsel for the 
office of lawyer regulation, upon the respondent.  In 
cases involving extraordinary circumstances the court 
may, in the exercise of its discretion, reduce the 
amount of costs imposed upon a respondent.  In 
exercising its discretion regarding the assessment of 
costs, the court will consider the submissions of the 
parties and all of the following factors: 
 
(a) The number of counts charged, contested, 
and proven. 
 
(b) The nature of the misconduct. 
 
(c) The level of discipline sought by the 
parties and recommended by the referee. 
 
(d) The 
respondent's 
cooperation 
with 
the 
disciplinary process. 
 
(e) Prior discipline, if any. 
 
(f) Other relevant circumstances. 
(2)  In seeking the assessment of costs by the 
supreme court, the director shall file in the court a 
statement of costs within 20 days after the filing of 
the referee's report or a SCR 22.12 or 22.34(10) 
stipulation, together with a recommendation to the 
court regarding the costs to be assessed against the 
respondent.  If an appeal of the referee's report is 
filed or the supreme court orders briefs to be filed 
in response to the referee's report, a supplemental 
statement of costs and recommendation regarding the 
assessment of costs shall be filed within 14 days 
after the appeal is assigned for submission to the 
court or the briefs ordered by the court are filed.  
The recommendation should explain why the particular 
amount of costs is being sought.  Objection to a 
statement 
of 
costs 
[which 
may 
include 
relevant 
supporting documentation] shall be filed by motion 
within 21 days after service of the statement of 
No. 
2006AP794-D   
 
15 
 
eliminate the recommended requirement of 100 hours pro bono 
service and in the absence of a showing of extraordinary 
circumstances, we adhere to our practice of assessing full costs 
on the disciplined lawyer in the present case. 
¶26 IT IS ORDERED that Rick D. Steinberg is publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for a period of two years 
Rick D. Steinberg must file quarterly trust account reports with 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation as a condition of his practice 
of law. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rick D. Steinberg attend a 
minimum 
of 
six 
hours 
of 
trust 
account 
continuing 
legal 
education.   
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Rick D. Steinberg pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs 
are not paid in the time specified, and absent a showing to this 
                                                                                                                                                             
costs.  A respondent who objects to a statement of 
costs must explain, with specificity, the reasons for 
the objection and must state what he or she considers 
to be a reasonable amount of costs.  The office of 
lawyer 
regulation 
may 
reply 
within 
11 
days 
of 
receiving the objection. 
(3)  Upon the assessment of costs by the supreme 
court, the clerk of the supreme court shall issue a 
judgment for costs and furnish a transcript of the 
judgment to the director.  The transcript of the 
judgment may be filed and docketed in the office of 
the clerk of court in any county and shall have the 
same force and effect as judgments docketed pursuant 
to Wis. Stat. §§ 809.25 and 806.16 (1997-98).  
No. 
2006AP794-D   
 
16 
 
court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of Rick D. Steinberg shall be suspended until further 
order of this court.   
¶30 LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2006AP794-D   
 
 
 
1