Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. David G. Stokes
Citation: 2012 WI 105
Docket Number: 2011AP002537-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: August 17, 2012

2012 WI 105 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP2537-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against David G. Stokes, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
David G. Stokes, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STOKES 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 17, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
  
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 105
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP2537-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David G. Stokes, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
David G. Stokes, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
AUG 17, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Pending before the court is a report and 
recommendation filed on March 6, 2012, by Referee Lisa Goldman.  
The report recommends this court revoke the license of Attorney 
David G. Stokes to practice law in Wisconsin.  The parties have 
stipulated that revocation is appropriate.  We agree that 
revocation is appropriate and direct Attorney Stokes to pay the 
costs of this proceeding which total $1,562.12 as of March 26, 
2012.   
No. 
2011AP2537-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Attorney Stokes was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin on October 17, 1978.  In May 1982 Attorney Stokes was 
privately reprimanded for improperly discussing a client's legal 
matter in the context of another client matter.  In 1995 he was 
publicly reprimanded for failing to provide competent and 
diligent 
representation 
of 
a 
client 
and 
for 
failing 
to 
communicate with a client in a criminal appeal matter.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stokes, 190 Wis. 2d 480, 526 
N.W.2d 507 (1995).  Attorney Stokes' license to practice law in 
Wisconsin was summarily suspended pursuant to SCR 22.20(1) by 
this court on September 27, 2011, due to Attorney Stokes' 
criminal conviction as more fully described below.  His license 
is currently suspended. 
¶3 
On October 6, 2010, Attorney Stokes was charged in 
Dane County circuit court with the commission of two felonies.  
State v. Stokes, Dane County Circuit Court Case No. 2010CF1663. 
He was charged with felony theft, contrary to Wis. Stat. 
§ 943.20(1)(d) and (3)(c), for billing the Wisconsin State 
Public Defender's Office (SPD) for 691 hours of work which he 
did not perform, consisting of 628 fraudulent billing entries in 
more than 40 client matters over a nearly four-year period, and 
for which he received more than $19,600.  He was also charged 
with perjury, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 946.31(1)(c), for 
allegedly giving false testimony under oath before the judge in 
the John Doe proceeding investigating Attorney Stokes' SPD 
billings.  
No. 
2011AP2537-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
On May 16, 2011, upon stipulation to the facts alleged 
in the criminal complaint, Attorney Stokes was convicted of 
felony theft.  The perjury charge was dismissed on the State's 
motion.  Prior to his sentencing hearing, Attorney Stokes repaid 
the SPD $19,630.01.  Attorney Stokes was sentenced to two years' 
probation 
with 
several 
conditions 
including 
six 
months 
incarceration, fines and costs in the amount of $6,423, and a 
prohibition on Attorney Stokes from working for the SPD or as a 
contract attorney for any government or non-profit organization. 
¶5 
Attorney Stokes' criminal conviction formed the basis 
for this court's order summarily suspending Attorney Stokes' 
license to practice law effective September 27, 2011, as well as 
an ensuing lawyer disciplinary complaint filed on November 2, 
2011, alleging one count of violating SCR 20:8.4(b).1   The 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) sought revocation of Attorney 
Stokes' law license.  Attorney Stokes filed an answer on or 
about 
December 1, 
2011, 
admitting 
all 
allegations, 
with 
clarification as to one paragraph.  
¶6 
Meanwhile, in addition to the OLR complaint, Attorney 
Stokes was also under investigation by the OLR for five 
additional grievances.  On or about December 21, 2011, Attorney 
Stokes filed a petition for revocation by consent, together with 
an appendix detailing the alleged misconduct, in which he 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(b) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects; . . . ." 
No. 
2011AP2537-D   
 
4 
 
admitted 
he 
could 
not 
successfully 
defend 
against 
the 
allegations of misconduct reflected by the grievances.  The OLR 
filed a response in support of the petition for revocation by 
consent on the same day.  
¶7 
Two of the pending grievances were filed by Brian 
Locke and relate to Mr. Locke's claims of fraudulent billing, 
allegations that Attorney Stokes committed perjury and falsified 
evidence during the John Doe proceeding, and allegations that 
Attorney Stokes refused to answer discovery requests and lied to 
the court in Mr. Locke's malpractice action against Attorney 
Stokes.   
¶8 
The third grievance was filed by Attorney Deborah 
Smith, director of the assigned counsel division of the SPD, 
relating to fraudulent billing and echoing the claims stated in 
the Locke grievance.   
¶9 
The fourth grievance was filed by the U.S. Trustee, 
who provided numerous examples of Attorney Stokes' incompetence 
as an attorney practicing before the Western District of 
Wisconsin Bankruptcy Court.  
¶10 The fifth and final grievance was filed by a former 
client, S.M., who contended that Attorney Stokes failed to 
properly represent her in a foreclosure action and improperly 
deposited her advanced fees in his business account.   
¶11 On 
December 
5, 
2011, 
Referee 
Lisa 
Goldman 
was 
appointed.  She identified that neither party had discussed 
restitution and, on January 23, 2012, sent a letter asking the 
No. 
2011AP2537-D   
 
5 
 
parties to state their position on restitution.  On January 26, 
2012, the OLR responded that it did not seek restitution.    
¶12 The referee filed her report on March 6, 2012.  With 
respect to the OLR complaint, the referee found that by 
fraudulently billing the SPD for work he did not perform and by 
accepting more than $19,600 from the SPD for that work, 
resulting in a felony theft conviction under Wis. Stat. 
§ 943.20(1)(d) 
and 
(3)(c), 
Attorney 
Stokes 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(b).  
¶13 In his petition for consensual license revocation, 
Attorney Stokes has conceded that he could not defend against 
the five grievances that were under investigation at the time he 
filed his petition.  The parties have stipulated that revocation 
is appropriate.   
¶14 The referee recommended that the court leave the issue 
of restitution open with regard to Attorney Stokes' clients in 
the bankruptcy matters in the U.S. District Court for the 
Western District of Wisconsin.  On March 26, 2012, after the 
referee filed her report, the OLR filed a document addressing 
the issue of restitution.  The OLR asked the court not to adopt 
the recommendation regarding restitution to the bankruptcy 
clients, explaining that the bankruptcy court has examined the 
circumstances, ordered refunds in several cases, and has 
verified that Attorney Stokes complied with those orders for 
refunds.   
¶15 However, the OLR now requests the court order Attorney 
Stokes to make $200 restitution to S.M., explaining that 
No. 
2011AP2537-D   
 
6 
 
subsequent investigation revealed it would be appropriate to 
seek restitution in this amount.  The OLR explains that this 
request was not made before the referee filed her report because 
the petition for consensual license revocation was filed before 
the 
grievances 
were 
submitted 
to 
the 
Preliminary 
Review 
Committee for a determination of cause to proceed.  However, 
because this request was made subsequent to the filing of the 
referee's report, the report does not contain any factual 
findings concerning restitution to S.M.   
¶16 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.  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.  
¶17 Upon consideration of the entire record, we accept the 
referee's findings of fact and agree that the facts support the 
legal 
conclusion 
that 
Attorney 
Stokes 
engaged 
in 
the 
professional misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint filed on 
November 
2, 
2011. 
 
We 
also 
agree 
with 
the 
referee's 
recommendation that we accept Attorney Stokes' petition for 
consensual license revocation.  
No. 
2011AP2537-D   
 
7 
 
¶18 Attorney Stokes' professional misconduct warrants the 
severest level of discipline that we impose, namely, the 
revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  We 
concur with the referee, who noted: 
 
This referee is troubled by Stokes' willingness 
to lie, forge signatures, and fraudulently bill the 
SPD in furtherance of his own personal goals.  He lied 
to a sitting court in the midst of a John Doe 
investigation.  He lied to the SPD in order to line 
his pockets with extra, unearned[] cash.  He forged 
client signatures on documents he later filed with the 
Western 
District 
of 
Wisconsin 
Bankruptcy 
Court.  
Equally disturbing are the allegations that his 
filings were filled with mistakes, and that the court 
personnel could not decipher the filings, or process 
his client's cases appropriately.   
. . . To consider anything less than a revocation of 
his license to practice law would unduly depreciate 
the seriousness of his misconduct and fail to deter 
others from engaging in similar conduct. 
¶19 With respect to the remaining questions regarding 
restitution, we decline to hold the matter of restitution open 
with respect to the bankruptcy cases, and we decline to grant 
the OLR's belated request to order Attorney Stokes to pay $200 
in restitution to S.M.  Finally, we further determine that 
Attorney Stokes should be required to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding.  SCR 22.24(1m).   
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that the license of David G. Stokes to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order. 
No. 
2011AP2537-D   
 
8 
 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date 
of this order, David G. Stokes shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
already done so, David G. Stokes shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
No. 
2011AP2537-D   
 
 
 
1