Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Anne B. Shindell
Citation: 2002 WI 133
Docket Number: 2000AP002913-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 27, 2002

2002 WI 133 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
00-2913-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Anne B. Shindell, Attorney at Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant-Respondent, 
 
v. 
Anne B. Shindell,  
 
Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHINDELL 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 27, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
November 14, 2002   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there were briefs by Terry E. 
Johnson, Frederick J. Smith, and Peterson, Johnson & Murray, 
S.C., Milwaukee. 
 
For the complainant-respondent, there was a brief by Robert 
G. Krohn and Roethe, Krohn, Pope, McCarthy & Haas, LLP, 
Edgerton. 
 
 
2002 WI 133 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  00-2913-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Anne B. Shindell, Attorney at  
Law. 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board  
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Anne B. Shindell,  
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 27, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Anne B. Shindell appealed from 
the referee's report concluding that Attorney Shindell engaged 
in misconduct with respect to her representation of five 
clients.  She also appealed from the referee's recommendation 
that her license to practice law be suspended for one year.   
¶2 
We determine that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.  We 
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
2 
 
further determine that the seriousness of the misconduct 
warrants the suspension of Attorney Shindell's license to 
practice law for one year. 
¶3 
Attorney Shindell was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1979 and practiced in Milwaukee, specializing in 
employment law.  In 1995 she consented to the imposition of a 
private reprimand for violating a statute, supreme court rule, 
supreme court order, or supreme court decision regulating the 
conduct of lawyers, as well as violating supreme court rules 
regarding fees, and violating the rule that requires a partner 
in a law firm to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm 
has in effect measures giving reasonable assurances that all 
lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional 
Conduct.  On October 21, 2002, in another proceeding, this court 
granted the motion of the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) to 
summarily suspend Attorney Shindell's license based on criminal 
convictions for attempted theft by fraud and resisting or 
obstructing an officer. 
¶4 
The OLR filed its complaint on October 23, 2000.  
Attorney Shindell filed an answer in November 2000.  Attorney 
Stanley F. Hack was appointed as referee.  Hearings were 
conducted before the referee between August 20, 2001, and 
October 
9, 
2001. 
 
The 
referee 
issued 
his 
report 
and 
recommendation on January 22, 2002.  The referee made findings 
of fact based on testimony and documentary evidence presented at 
the hearings concerning Attorney Shindell's representation of 
the five clients.  The referee found that in the course of 
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
3 
 
representing these clients Attorney Shindell engaged in a 
pattern of neglect that included a failure to return unearned 
fees in several matters.  
¶5 
The first claim of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
complaint involved a client who retained Attorney Shindell in 
early 1994 to prosecute an employment termination and benefits 
dispute, including an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
(EEOC) claim, against her former employer.  Between January 1994 
and early 1996 Attorney Shindell filed an initial EEOC claim and 
engaged in negotiations with the former employer's counsel 
regarding the client's retirement benefits and health insurance 
coverage.   
¶6 
In April and May 1995 the client wrote to Attorney 
Shindell inquiring about the status of the case.  Attorney 
Shindell failed to respond.  In June of 1995 Attorney Shindell 
informed the client that she had obtained a settlement with the 
former employer regarding medical and retirement benefits.  In 
August 1995 the client wrote to Attorney Shindell inquiring as 
to the status of the settlement papers and expressing her 
concern over the health insurance continuation issue.  Attorney 
Shindell's office sent a proposed agreement to the client on 
September 7, 1995.  The agreement did not include a reference to 
the special payment allowance which the client claimed to have 
understood to be part of the agreement based on her earlier 
conversations with Attorney Shindell. 
¶7 
After 
trying 
unsuccessfully 
to 
contact 
Attorney 
Shindell by telephone the client wrote to Attorney Shindell on 
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
4 
 
October 5, 1995, urging her to complete the litigation and again 
emphasizing her concern about health insurance coverage.  After 
hearing nothing further from Attorney Shindell the client again 
wrote to Attorney Shindell on October 22, 1995, and enclosed an 
executed copy of the separation agreement and general release to 
which the client had added initialed handwritten language 
providing for inclusion of the special payment allowance.  On 
October 26, 1995, Attorney Shindell signed her approval on the 
agreement and also initialed the handwritten language pertaining 
to the special payment allowance.  By letters dated November 9, 
1995, and January 3, 1996, the client again urged Attorney 
Shindell to finalize the matter.  
¶8 
On January 24, 1996, Attorney Shindell wrote to 
adverse counsel requesting a cost analysis in the event the 
former employer were to provide the group retiree health benefit 
to the client.  Adverse counsel replied that he had earlier 
stated the former employer's position, which was that the 
proposed settlement agreement specifically omitted any special 
payment allowance.  Attorney Shindell did not forward this 
letter to the client until March 18, 1996.  On April 3, 1996, 
Attorney Shindell informed the client that comprehensive health 
insurance could be available to her if she would accept the 
settlement offer without the added language pertaining to the 
special payment allowance. 
¶9 
Attorney Shindell took no further action regarding the 
pending claim.  On April 18, 1996, EEOC issued a dismissal and 
notice of rights within 90 days of the dismissal letter stating 
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
5 
 
it was unlikely further investigation would result in a finding 
of discrimination but that no decision had been made on the 
merits of the charge.  In the course of an April 26, 1996, 
telephone conversation with Attorney Shindell the client agreed 
to withdraw the special payment allowance claim with the 
understanding that the settlement agreement would then be 
accepted by her former employer to include health insurance 
coverage.  Without notice to the client Attorney Shindell closed 
the file.  
¶10 In September 1997 the client wrote to Attorney 
Shindell reminding her that the health insurance coverage needed 
to commence no later than April 1, 1998, and inquiring as to the 
status of the EEOC claim.  Attorney Shindell failed to respond.  
The client again wrote to Attorney Shindell in February and 
October 1998.  The client's telephone log, which was admitted 
into 
evidence 
at 
the 
disciplinary 
hearings, 
revealed 
approximately 20 calls to Attorney Shindell between February 26, 
1998, and August 28, 1998.  Most of those calls were not 
returned by Attorney Shindell. 
¶11 In April or May of 1998 Attorney Shindell attempted to 
contact the former employer regarding the client's health 
insurance coverage.  Adverse counsel responded by letter of May 
7, 1998, saying that a settlement agreement had never been 
reached between the parties.  Attorney Shindell never forwarded 
a copy of this letter to the client or advised the client of its 
content.   
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
6 
 
¶12 The client's brother attempted to contact Attorney 
Shindell by telephone to discuss the matter.  After receiving no 
response the client's brother wrote to Attorney Shindell.  
Attorney Shindell subsequently spoke to the client's brother and 
said the litigation would be reopened and that the former 
employer's counsel would again be contacted for purposes of 
enforcing the prior agreement.  Attorney Shindell promised some 
action in the matter and a written report of her progress no 
later than February 16, 1999.  She never provided any such 
report to the client or the client's brother.  
¶13 The second claim of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
complaint involved a client whose employment was terminated in 
October 1997.  The client was interested in negotiating a better 
deal for himself than his former employer had initially offered, 
and he paid Attorney Shindell a $500 retainer.  Attorney 
Shindell obtained the client's personnel file from the former 
employer and corresponded with the former employer regarding 
benefits that might be available to the client.  Attorney 
Shindell also reviewed the former employer's offer and on 
February 6, 1998, submitted a counteroffer.  
¶14 During a February 12, 1998, telephone conversation 
with the former employer's human resources corporate counsel 
Attorney Shindell attempted to get the former employer to find 
another position for the client.  The former employer refused to 
modify its original severance package offer.  Attorney Shindell 
failed to inform the client of this negotiating session.  On 
March 5, 1998, Attorney Shindell and the former employer's 
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
7 
 
counsel continued their discussions regarding the client's 
severance package.  The former employer's counsel agreed to 
provide Attorney Shindell with a deadline of March 13, 1998, to 
accept or reject their offer.  
¶15 On March 13, 1998, the client and Attorney Shindell 
discussed the matter and Attorney Shindell informed the client 
for the first time that his former employer would not extend 
benefits beyond the original severance package offer.  During 
the week of March 23, 1998, the client made numerous calls to 
Attorney Shindell.  Attorney Shindell failed to return any of 
the calls.  After hearing nothing from Attorney Shindell the 
client negotiated directly with his former employer and was able 
to obtain certain concessions from them in addition to the 
benefits set forth in the original severance package offer.  
Attorney Shindell was not involved in these negotiations or the 
ultimate settlement.  During his final negotiations with his 
former employer the client was advised by the former employer's 
counsel that counsel had informed Attorney Shindell of their 
position on the severance agreement on February 12, 1998.  
¶16 On May 10, 1999, the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility (BAPR) (the predecessor to the OLR) staff sent 
Attorney Shindell a letter via regular mail requesting a 
response to the client's grievance within 20 days.  On June 11, 
1999, having received no response the BAPR staff sent Attorney 
Shindell another letter via certified mail demanding a response 
to the client's grievance within ten days.  On June 21, 1999, 
Attorney Shindell telephoned the BAPR staff and said she would 
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
8 
 
file a response by the end of the week.  The response was not 
filed by that date.  
¶17 The third claim of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
complaint involved a client whose employment was terminated in 
November 1998 and sought Attorney Shindell's services to improve 
his severance package.  This client signed a retainer agreement 
letter on December 11, 1998, and paid Attorney Shindell a $1000 
retainer.  The retainer agreement provided that the $1000 was to 
be applied to the fees and costs incurred in the matter.  The 
agreement did not contain any provision indicating the $1000 was 
not refundable.  In early January 1999 the client contacted 
Attorney Shindell's office inquiring as to the status of his 
case.  Attorney Shindell failed to return the client's calls and 
he decided to terminate her services.  He requested a refund of 
his $1000 retainer.   
¶18 On January 7, 1999, an employee in Attorney Shindell's 
office sent Attorney Shindell an e-mail advising her that the 
client did not want to proceed any further and that he wanted 
the $1000 retainer returned, less any earned fees.  On January 
25, 1999, Attorney Shindell sent the client a billing statement 
reflecting legal services totaling $16.50 and disbursements 
totaling $19.25.  On February 23, 1999, the client sent Attorney 
Shindell a certified letter saying he had left eight telephone 
messages that were not returned and that he wanted the $1000 
retainer, less disbursements, returned.  Attorney Shindell 
failed to respond.  
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
9 
 
¶19 On June 15, 1999, the client filed a small claims 
action against Attorney Shindell in Milwaukee County.  The 
client obtained a default judgment against Attorney Shindell in 
the amount of $1182.  Attorney Shindell satisfied the judgment 
on or about October 1, 1999.   
¶20 By letters dated March 31, 1999, and April 30, 1999, 
the BAPR staff notified Attorney Shindell of the client's 
grievance and requested a written response.  By telephone 
conversation on May 6, 1999, the BAPR staff extended the time 
for Attorney Shindell to respond to the grievance to May 24, 
1999.  No response was filed by that date.  By letter dated June 
2, 1999, the BAPR staff again requested that Attorney Shindell 
provide a written response to the grievance.  On June 21, 1999, 
Attorney Shindell called the BAPR staff and indicated a response 
would be received by the end of that week.  No response was 
filed. 
¶21 The fourth claim of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
complaint involved a client who retained Attorney Shindell in 
April 1998 to either negotiate a settlement or proceed to 
litigation 
with 
her 
deceased 
husband's 
employer 
and 
its 
insurance company regarding salary and death benefit issues.  
The client paid Attorney Shindell a retainer of $1000.   
¶22 The client initially met with an associate at Attorney 
Shindell's 
firm. 
 
The 
associate 
left 
the 
firm 
shortly 
thereafter.  Prior to her departure the associate prepared a 
memorandum to the file setting forth a number of facts and 
conclusions regarding the client's claims.  The memorandum 
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
10 
 
generally concluded that the client's claim was not viable since 
it depended upon proving that the client's husband's employer 
acted in a discriminatory manner toward the client's husband 
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The associate 
concluded this proof was difficult and that the matter did not 
warrant litigation.  The associate urged that the Shindell law 
firm contact the employer's counsel to see whether they would 
stand by an earlier proposal that had been made to the client to 
include payment of wages and benefits due at the original 
contract rate rather than at a reduced rate, provided the client 
would agree not to pursue additional life insurance benefits.  
The associate also recommended the Shindell law firm contact a 
medical malpractice attorney to see if there was a viable claim 
arising from the circumstances surrounding the care the client's 
husband received prior to his death.  The associate informed the 
client that Attorney Shindell would be handling the rest of the 
case.  
¶23 Attorney Shindell first met with the client on January 
9, 1998.  She did not discuss the contents of the associate's 
memorandum with the client at that time.  Following this meeting 
the client wrote numerous letters and made multiple telephone 
calls to Attorney Shindell to inquire about the status of the 
case.  The client also provided additional information relating 
to her claim by correspondence dated October 12, 1998, and 
February 5, 1999.  Attorney Shindell failed to respond to the 
client's inquiries.  
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
11 
 
¶24 On February 17, 1999, the client wrote to Attorney 
Shindell 
saying 
she 
was 
terminating 
the 
attorney-client 
relationship.  By certified letter dated February 25, 1999, the 
client requested that her file be sent to her.  Attorney 
Shindell failed to respond.  In a May 24, 1999, telephone call 
with Attorney Shindell the client again requested her file, and 
by letter dated June 5, 1999, the client asked for a refund of 
all monies that had been paid to Attorney Shindell.  On July 1, 
1999, the client sent a certified letter to Attorney Shindell 
again asking for her file and a refund of the fees paid.  
Attorney 
Shindell 
failed 
to 
respond. 
 
The 
client 
paid 
approximately $2800 in fees and costs to Attorney Shindell. 
¶25 By letter dated August 6, 1999, the BAPR staff 
notified Attorney Shindell of the client's grievance and 
requested her to file a written response within 20 days.  
Attorney Shindell requested and received an extension until 
September 10, 1999.  On September 17, 1999, the BAPR staff sent 
a certified letter to Attorney Shindell noting the prior 
extension to respond to the client's grievance and informing 
Attorney Shindell that a written response was to be postmarked 
no later than September 27, 1999.  By voicemail message of 
September 28, 1999, Attorney Shindell requested an additional 
extension until October 14, 1999, to respond to the grievance.  
The extension was granted by the BAPR staff.  Attorney Shindell 
failed to submit a written response to the client's grievance.  
¶26 The fifth claim of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
complaint involved a man whose employment was terminated in 
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
12 
 
October of 1998.  In late 1998 he retained Attorney Shindell to 
advise him regarding a possible monetary claim against his 
former employer.  Attorney Shindell agreed to research the 
merits of the claim and to send a demand letter to the client's 
former employer within a month.  The client provided Attorney 
Shindell with various documents relevant to his claim and paid 
her a $1000 retainer fee.   
¶27 In March and early April of 1999 the client attempted 
to contact Attorney Shindell several times to inquire about the 
status of his case.  Attorney Shindell either failed to respond 
or provided evasive answers.  She also failed to forward a 
demand letter to the client's former employer.   
¶28 On or about April 20, 1999, the client received 
Attorney Shindell's billing statement.  He wrote to her 
disputing various billing entries and terminating her legal 
representation.  He requested a return of the unearned portion 
of his retainer fee.  The client wrote additional letters on May 
4 and May 14, 1999, again demanding return of the unearned 
portion of his retainer.  Attorney Shindell failed to respond. 
¶29 On May 15, 1999, the client filed a small claims 
action against Attorney Shindell in Milwaukee County seeking 
return of the unearned portion of the retainer fee.  Attorney 
Shindell was personally served with the small claims summons and 
complaint on May 17, 1999.  That same day she wrote to the 
client promising to send a final bill with any refund that might 
be due.   
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
13 
 
¶30 On June 4, 1999, a default judgment was entered in the 
client's favor in the amount of $987.92.  On May 24, 2000, 
Attorney 
Shindell 
executed 
and saw 
to the 
filing 
of a 
satisfaction of judgment indicating that the judgment had been 
fully paid and satisfied.  The client never consented to or 
authorized the signing or the filing of a satisfaction of 
judgment.   
¶31 By letter dated June 22, 1999, the BAPR staff advised 
Attorney Shindell of the client's grievance and requested a 
written response within 20 days.  Attorney Shindell failed to 
respond.  By letter of July 22, 1999, the BAPR staff again 
requested a written response to the client's grievance no later 
than August 2, 1999.  Attorney Shindell again failed to respond.  
¶32 The referee found that by failing to respond to 
telephone calls and inquiries and failing to perform appropriate 
legal services on behalf of the first, second, and third 
clients, Attorney Shindell violated SCR 20:1.3.1  The referee 
also found that by failing to respond to letters and telephone 
calls from the first, second, and fourth clients inquiring as to 
the status of their claims and by not providing those clients 
with 
timely 
information, 
Attorney 
Shindell 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.4(a).2  The referee also found that by failing to inform the 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "Diligence.  A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."  
2 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: "Communication.  (a) A lawyer 
shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter 
and 
promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information." 
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
14 
 
first client about the status of negotiations and failing to 
inform her of the consequences of not pursuing either the health 
insurance issue or the EEOC claims, and by failing to inform the 
second client about his former employer's position as to the 
severance agreement in a timely manner, Attorney Shindell 
violated SCR 20:1.4(b).3   
¶33 The referee also concluded that by failing to provide 
further legal services on behalf of the first, third, fourth, 
and fifth clients, Attorney Shindell violated SCR 20:1.16(d).4  
The referee also found that by filing a judgment satisfaction on 
her own behalf without authority from the fifth client and by 
falsely asserting within the document that the small claims 
judgment had been satisfied to the fifth client's satisfaction, 
Attorney Shindell violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).5  The referee also 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides:  "(b) A lawyer shall explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding the representation." 
4 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:  
(d) 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. 
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
5 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides: "Candor toward the tribunal. 
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of 
fact or law to a tribunal." 
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
15 
 
concluded that Attorney Shindell's actions with respect to the 
satisfaction of judgment violated SCR 20:8.4(c).6   
¶34 The referee also concluded that by failing to provide 
written responses to grievances filed by the second, third, 
fourth, and fifth clients, and by failing to cooperate with the 
BAPR's investigation, Attorney Shindell violated former SCR 
21.03(4) and 22.07(2).7   
¶35 The 
referee 
recommended 
that 
Attorney 
Shindell's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for one year.  
He 
also 
recommended 
that, 
as 
a 
condition 
to 
seeking 
reinstatement, Attorney Shindell should be required to refund 
$2800 to the fourth client and should be required to pay the 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."  
7 Former SCR 21.03(4) provides:  "(4) Every attorney shall 
cooperate 
with 
the 
board 
and 
the 
administrator 
in 
the 
investigation, prosecution and disposition of grievances and 
complaints filed with or by the board or administrator." 
Former SCR 22.07(2) provides: 
During the course 
of an 
investigation, the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent 
of the subject being investigated. The respondent 
shall 
fully 
and 
fairly 
disclose 
all 
facts 
and 
circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct or 
medical incapacity within 20 days of being served by 
ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow 
additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information or misrepresentation in a disclosure is 
misconduct. The administrator or committee may make a 
further investigation before making a recommendation 
to the board. 
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
16 
 
small claims judgment entered in favor of the fifth client in 
the amount of the judgment, together with statutory interest to 
the date paid.  The referee also recommended that Attorney 
Shindell be ordered to pay the OLR the cost of the proceedings 
within 60 days.  
¶36 Attorney Shindell argues that many of the referee's 
findings of fact are clearly erroneous.  She asserts that the 
referee erred in giving too much weight to the testimony of the 
five former clients while discounting testimony presented by 
disinterested witnesses.  She also argues that the referee 
erroneously punished her for not paying the small claims 
judgment entered in favor of the fifth client, and she asserts 
there is no ethical or professional obligation to pay a 
judgment.  She also asserts that the referee discounted various 
mitigating factors such as the fact that she went through an 
acrimonious divorce, suffered from serious health problems, and 
had 
administrative 
problems 
at 
her 
office, 
including 
embezzlement by a former office manager and difficulties 
retaining employees.  She asserts that to the extent this court 
finds that any neglect of client matters has been proven, a 60-
day suspension would be an appropriate level of discipline. 
¶37 The 
OLR 
responds 
that 
the 
referee's 
decision 
appropriately 
addresses 
the 
underlying 
witness 
credibility 
issues.  The OLR contends the referee's findings of fact are not 
clearly erroneous and that his conclusions of law are supported 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.   
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
17 
 
¶38 A referee's findings of fact on a disciplinary matter 
will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 
562 N.W.2d 137 (1997).  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2000 WI 130, 248 
Wis. 2d 662, 675, 636 N.W.2d 718.  Since the referee's findings 
of fact have not been shown to be clearly erroneous, we adopt 
them.  We also adopt the conclusions of law as set forth in the 
referee's report and recommendation.   
¶39 The referee noted, and we agree, that the record 
demonstrates the existence of a number of mitigating factors, 
including the fact that Attorney Shindell suffered from serious 
personal and health problems and also had administrative 
problems in her office which seemed to peak in early 1999.  As 
the referee also noted, however, it would have been appropriate 
for Attorney Shindell to have obtained assistance from other 
attorneys in her office or brought in outside counsel during 
this time, and the absence of this assistance was not the fault 
of her clients, who were unaware of Attorney Shindell's 
problems. 
¶40 Attorney Shindell's misconduct with respect to her 
handling of the five client matters and her failure to cooperate 
with the BAPR's investigation are serious failings warranting a 
suspension of her license.  A one-year suspension of her license 
to practice law is appropriate discipline for her professional 
misconduct.   
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
18 
 
¶41 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Anne B. 
Shindell to practice law in Wisconsin remains suspended for a 
period of one additional year, effective the date of this order.  
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Anne B. Shindell 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Anne B. Shindell 
refund, within 60 days of the date of this order, $2800 to the 
fourth client.  If this refund is not made within the specified 
time, the license of Attorney Anne B. Shindell to practice law 
in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court.  
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Anne B. Shindell pay the small claims 
judgment entered in favor of the fifth client with interest 
accrued to date.  If this payment is not made within the 
specified time, the license of Attorney Anne B. Shindell to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further 
order of the court.  
¶45 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Anne B. Shindell pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs 
are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to 
this court of her inability to pay the costs within that time, 
the license of Attorney Anne B. Shindell to practice law in 
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
19 
 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court.  
¶46 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution to the fourth 
client and payment of the small claims judgment, with interest, 
to the fifth client, shall be paid prior to paying costs to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
No. 
00-2913-D   
 
 
 
1