Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert W. Horsch
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2015AP001928-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 21, 2017

2017 WI 105 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP1928-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Robert W. Horsch, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Robert W. Horsch, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HORSCH 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 21, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
CONCURRED/DISSENTED: 
      
ABRAHAMSON, J. concurs and dissents (opinion 
filed). 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2017 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.   2015AP1928-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Robert W. Horsch, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Robert W. Horsch, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 21, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of Referee Richard M. Esenberg that Attorney Robert W. Horsch be 
publicly reprimanded for professional misconduct and that he pay 
the full costs of this proceeding, which are $1,797.03 as of 
February 7, 2017.  The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) asked 
that, in addition to the public reprimand, the court impose 
various conditions on Attorney Horsch.  The referee recommended 
that implementation of the conditions be suspended for a period 
No. 
2015AP1928-D   
 
2 
 
of 90 days following this court's order imposing discipline.  
The referee made this recommendation because it appeared that 
Attorney Horsch wanted to voluntarily resign from the practice 
of law.  The referee recommended that if, during the 90-day 
period, Attorney Horsch voluntarily resigned from the State Bar, 
the conditions would not need to be implemented.   
¶2 
We conclude that Attorney Horsch's felony conviction 
for fourth offense operating while intoxicated (OWI) warrants a 
60-day suspension of his license to practice law rather than a 
public reprimand.  Attorney Horsch has now indicated that he 
does not want to resign from the practice of law.  However, his 
license is currently administratively suspended so he is not 
practicing law.  Under the circumstances, we deem it appropriate 
to order that the conditions proposed by the OLR would take 
effect in the event Attorney Horsch ever resumes the active 
practice of law.  We also deem it appropriate, as is our custom, 
to impose the full costs of this proceeding against Attorney 
Horsch. 
¶3 
Attorney Horsch was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2003.  His Wisconsin law license has been suspended 
since 2013 for failure to pay State Bar dues, noncompliance with 
continuing legal education (CLE) requirements, and failure to 
submit the required trust account certification to the State 
Bar.  Attorney Horsch's prior disciplinary history consists of a 
private reprimand imposed for a criminal conviction for OWI, 
third offense, and practicing law while his license was 
suspended.  Private Reprimand No. 2015-5 (electronic copy 
No. 
2015AP1928-D   
 
3 
 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002761.html). 
¶4 
On September 21, 2015, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging that Attorney Horsch had committed three counts of 
misconduct.  The complaint alleged that on the evening of 
September 28, 2014, a citizen called to report a person passed 
out in a vehicle in the middle of the road.  Sheboygan police 
responded and found Attorney Horsch leaned over in the driver's 
seat of his vehicle, sleeping.  An officer woke Attorney Horsch 
and noted that he did not seem to know where he was.  Attorney 
Horsch said he was tired and that he was not safe to drive.  He 
had consumed alcohol. 
¶5 
Because of his three prior OWI convictions, Attorney 
Horsch was not to operate a motor vehicle with an alcohol 
concentration greater than 0.02 percent.  An analyst from the 
State Lab of Hygiene subsequently tested a sample of Attorney 
Horsch's blood taken in connection with the September 28, 2014 
incident and reported that Attorney Horsch's blood alcohol level 
was 0.24 percent.   
¶6 
As of September 28, 2014, Attorney Horsch's driving 
privileges had been revoked.  He had an occupational license, 
but he was operating outside of his approved hours when the 
officer found him. 
¶7 
On April 23, 2015, Attorney Horsch appeared before 
Judge Bourke in Sheboygan County circuit court and entered no 
contest pleas to fourth offense OWI, a Class H felony, and 
operating while revoked, an unclassified misdemeanor.  Judge 
No. 
2015AP1928-D   
 
4 
 
Bourke found Attorney Horsch guilty of both offenses and 
sentenced him to serve eight months in jail with Huber release 
for work and child care, plus fines and court costs, a 36-month 
revocation of his license to drive, and other conditions.  
Attorney Horsch never reported his convictions to the OLR or to 
the clerk of this court. 
¶8 
On January 7 and February 10, 2015, the OLR sent 
letters to Attorney Horsch seeking information about the case 
and advising him of his duty to cooperate with the OLR's 
investigation under SCRs 21.15(4), 22.03(6) and other applicable 
Supreme Court Rules.  Attorney Horsch never responded to either 
letter.   
¶9 
The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct: 
Count One:  By engaging in conduct leading to his 
conviction for the felony offense of OWI 4th and a 
misdemeanor conviction for Operating While Revoked, 
Attorney Horsch violated SCR 20:8.4(b).1 
Count Two:  By failing to report his conviction for 
the felony offense of OWI 4th and his misdemeanor 
conviction for Operating While Revoked to the OLR and 
the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Attorney 
Horsch violated SCR 21:15(5)2 and SCR 20:8.4(f).3 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides:  "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." 
2 SCR 21.15(5) provides:   
 
An attorney found guilty or convicted of any 
crime on or after July 1, 2002, shall notify in 
writing the office of lawyer regulation and the clerk 
(continued) 
No. 
2015AP1928-D   
 
5 
 
Count Three:  By failing to respond to the OLR's 
investigative letters of January 7 and February 10, 
2015, Attorney Horsch violated SCR 22.03(2)4 and 
SCR 22.03(6).5 
                                                                                                                                                             
of the Supreme Court within 5 days after the finding 
or conviction, whichever first occurs.  The notice 
shall include the identity of the attorney, the date 
of finding or conviction, the offenses, and the 
jurisdiction.  An attorney's failure to notify the 
office of lawyer regulation and the clerk of the 
supreme court of being found guilty of his or her 
conviction is misconduct. 
3 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  "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(2) provides:   
 
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 
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.   
5 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's willful 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." 
No. 
2015AP1928-D   
 
6 
 
The OLR asked that this court publicly reprimand Attorney 
Horsch.  It also asked that the court impose the following 
conditions: 
 Within 60 days of the Court's final order, 
Attorney Horsch must provide to the OLR signed 
medical releases of confidentiality for each 
treatment 
provider 
who 
has 
provided 
or 
is 
providing alcohol-related or substance abuse-
related treatment, assessment or services to 
Attorney Horsch during the past five years, so 
that 
the 
OLR 
and 
each 
provider 
can 
share 
pertinent information related to Attorney Horsch, 
such releases to remain in effect for two years 
from the date Attorney Horsch signs the releases; 
 Within 60 days of the Court's final order, 
Attorney 
Horsch 
must, 
at 
his 
own 
expense, 
participate in an alcohol and other drug abuse 
(AODA) and mental health assessment by a person 
of the OLR's choosing, which shall make specific 
written 
recommendations, 
if 
appropriate, 
for 
Attorney Horsch's treatment or maintenance.  The 
assessment must be provided to the OLR; 
 Attorney Horsch must submit to monitoring within 
30 days of the date of the assessment, as 
directed by the OLR; and for a period of two 
years beginning on the date of his entry into a 
monitoring 
program 
must 
comply 
with 
all 
monitoring 
requirements, 
including 
all 
requirements determined to be appropriate by the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Assistance Program (WisLAP) or 
the OLR's designated monitor; 
 Attorney Horsch must refrain from the consumption 
of alcohol and any mood-altering drugs without a 
valid prescription while subject to monitoring. 
¶10 Attorney Horsch filed an answer on November 23, 2015.  
He admitted receiving the letters sent by the OLR and further 
admitted that he did not report his convictions to either the 
OLR or the clerk of this court.  He said he did not believe he 
No. 
2015AP1928-D   
 
7 
 
was required to report the convictions or respond to the OLR 
because he is not a lawyer since his license to practice law was 
administratively suspended in 2013. 
¶11 The referee was appointed on January 5, 2016.  Both 
Attorney Horsch and the OLR moved for summary judgment.  The OLR 
claimed it was entitled to summary judgment because Attorney 
Horsch did not deny committing the alleged violations.  Attorney 
Horsch argued the case should be dismissed because he no longer 
practices law, is currently administratively suspended from 
practice, and does not intend to ever practice again.  Attorney 
Horsch continued to argue that he was not an attorney and is no 
longer subject to the supreme court rules governing the conduct 
of attorneys.  Accordingly, Attorney Horsch claimed that the OLR 
has no jurisdiction over him. 
¶12 The referee issued his report and recommendation on 
January 20, 2017.  The referee rejected Attorney Horsch's claim 
that because he is already administratively suspended, he is not 
an attorney and is not subject to discipline.  The referee 
pointed out that SCR 21.15(1) provides that an attorney 
"admitted to practice law or practicing law in Wisconsin is 
subject to the lawyer regulation system . . .."  The referee 
also 
noted 
that 
SCR 
10.03(7), 
which 
governs 
voluntary 
resignation from the bar, requires an attorney to make a request 
for resignation and provides that such a resignation is not 
accepted until this court determines if the attorney seeking 
resignation 
is 
subject 
to 
any 
pending 
grievances, 
investigations, or proceedings.  The referee opined that 
No. 
2015AP1928-D   
 
8 
 
voluntary resignation would not be subject to regulation or 
procedural requisites if it could be accomplished by simply 
ceasing to practice law. 
¶13 The referee went on to say the conclusion that 
Attorney Horsch is not yet free of the regulatory system is also 
supported by SCR 10.03(3)(1), which provides that membership in 
the state bar consists of all persons licensed to practice law 
in the state.  The referee said Attorney Horsch is one of those 
persons, even though his license has been suspended for failure 
to pay dues and fulfill CLE requirements.   
¶14 Attorney Horsch argued that this court should not care 
about a person who is not practicing law.  The OLR countered 
that, if Attorney Horsch is correct, a lawyer could evade 
responsibility 
for 
planned 
misconduct 
by 
strategically 
orchestrating his or her suspension.  The referee noted that a 
lawyer who "resigns" by inactivity and suspension for failure to 
pay dues and earn CLE credits can easily "un-resign" by paying 
back dues and earning the necessary credits.  The referee said, 
"If inactivity and suspension blocks discipline, such a lawyer 
will be returned to practice without facing professional 
discipline for his or her past misconduct."   
¶15 The referee went on to say, "Unlike a lawyer who is 
seeking to become licensed for the first time, there would be no 
examination of the character and fitness of someone who simply 
catches up on her bar dues and CLE credits.  Yet the public 
ought to be protected from those attorneys whose conduct during 
a period of inactivity calls their character and fitness into 
No. 
2015AP1928-D   
 
9 
 
question."  The referee also said, "Criminal conduct or a 
decision to drive under the influence or addiction to drug or 
alcohol, for example, is not irrelevant because an attorney was 
not actively practicing at the time." 
¶16 The 
referee 
further 
noted 
that 
this 
court 
has 
routinely exercised jurisdiction over attorneys, like Attorney 
Horsch, who have been suspended.  The referee said, "[ ]Horsch 
holds the key that will release him from 'imprisonment' within 
the bar in his own hands.  All he has to do is comply with the 
legal requirements to resign from the bar."  The referee said if 
Attorney Horsch voluntarily resigns from the bar and later seeks 
readmission, this court will be able to demand whatever proof it 
deems necessary to protect the public.  Accordingly, the referee 
recommended that this court publicly reprimand Attorney Horsch 
for the three counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
complaint. 
 
The 
referee 
further 
recommended 
that 
the 
implementation of the conditions requested by the OLR be 
suspended for 90 days and if, during that period of time, 
Attorney Horsch voluntarily resigns from the Bar, then the 
conditions need not be implemented and if, at any time during 
the pendency of the conditions Attorney Horsch resigns from the 
bar, the conditions need not be continued. 
¶17 On May 15, 2017, this court issued an order directing 
Attorney Horsch that, if he wished to resign his membership in 
the State Bar of Wisconsin, he should file a petition to 
voluntarily surrender his Wisconsin law license.  Attorney 
Horsch was informed that this court's consideration of the 
No. 
2015AP1928-D   
 
10 
 
pending disciplinary matter would be held in abeyance for 20 
days and in the event he filed a petition to voluntarily 
surrender his license within that time, his request for a 
voluntarily resignation from the State Bar would be considered 
along with the pending disciplinary proceeding.  Attorney Horsch 
was informed that if he did not file a petition to voluntarily 
surrender his license to practice law within that time, this 
court would proceed with its review of Referee Esenberg's report 
and recommendation. 
¶18 On June 7, 2017, Attorney Horsch filed a response to 
this court's May 15, 2017 order saying that he does not want to 
voluntarily resign his membership in the State Bar of Wisconsin.  
Rather, he requests to change his status with the State Bar from 
active to inactive.6  In light of Attorney Horsch's response, the 
referee's report and recommendation is now ripe for review. 
¶19 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The 
court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of 
the 
referee's 
recommendation. 
 
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
                                                 
6 SCR 10.03(3) provides:  " . . . The class of inactive 
members includes those persons who are eligible for active 
membership but are not engaged in the practice of law in this 
state and have filed with the secretary of the association 
written notice requesting enrollment in the class of inactive 
members." 
No. 
2015AP1928-D   
 
11 
 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686. 
¶20 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law that Attorney Horsch violated the supreme 
court rules as alleged in the three counts set forth above.  
Upon careful consideration we conclude, however, that a 60-day 
suspension, rather than a public reprimand, is an appropriate 
level of discipline.   
¶21 We note that in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Brandt, 2009 WI 43, 317 Wis. 2d 266, 766 N.W.2d 194, (Brandt I) 
an 
attorney 
was 
publicly 
reprimanded 
as 
the 
result 
of 
convictions for third and fourth offense OWI in Wisconsin and 
third offense OWI in Minnesota.  In addition, Attorney Brandt 
failed to adequately supervise an employee.  In Brandt I, we 
noted that the question of whether to impose another reprimand 
or a suspension was a very close call but ultimately concluded 
that another public reprimand, coupled with conditions that 
Attorney Brandt undergo alcohol and drug assessment and refrain 
from the consumption of alcohol and other non-prescription 
drugs, was appropriate.  Attorney Brandt had previously received 
one private reprimand and two public reprimands.   
¶22 Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissented in Brandt I and 
said the appropriate sanction would be a suspension in the range 
of 
60 
days 
to 
six 
months, 
given 
Attorney 
Brandt's 
acknowledgement that he was addicted to alcohol.  Justice 
Bradley's concerns were ultimately borne out since Attorney 
Brandt was arrested for OWI in Minnesota less than eight months 
No. 
2015AP1928-D   
 
12 
 
after the 2009 public reprimand was imposed.  See In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Brandt, 
2012 
WI 
8, 
338 
Wis. 2d 524, 808 N.W.2d 687.  (Brandt II).  In Brandt II, 
Attorney Brandt's license was suspended for four months. 
¶23 Attorney 
Horsch's 
multiple 
OWI 
convictions 
are 
unquestionably a serious failing that "reflects adversely on his 
fitness as a lawyer in other respects."  SCR 20:8.4(b).  
Attorney Horsch's four drunk driving convictions evince an 
irresponsible attitude toward the law.  In addition, as Justice 
Ann Walsh Bradley noted in her dissent in Brandt I, although 
Attorney Horsch states that he has remained sober since 
September 2014, there is no evidence in the record apart from 
his own self-serving statements that he is indeed maintaining 
sobriety.  "Given the concept of progressive discipline, the 
nature of the multiple offenses, and a record that leaves 
unanswered questions about [Attorney Horsch's] sobriety," Brandt 
I, 317 Wis. 2d 266, 289 (Bradley J., dissent), we conclude that 
a 60-day suspension of Attorney Horsch's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction. 
¶24 As to the conditions proposed by the OLR, given that 
Attorney 
Horsch's 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
is 
currently 
administratively suspended and he does not wish to voluntarily 
resign his membership in the State Bar of Wisconsin, we deem it 
appropriate to order that the conditions shall commence at such 
time, if any, that Attorney Horsch's license to practice law is 
reinstated.  Finally, we deem it appropriate, as is our usual 
No. 
2015AP1928-D   
 
13 
 
custom, to impose the full costs of the disciplinary proceeding 
on Attorney Horsch. 
¶25 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Robert W. Horsch to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective the date of this order.   
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Robert W. Horsch shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$1,797.03 as of February 7, 2017. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent that he has 
not already done so, Robert W. Horsch 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. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event Robert W. 
Horsch's license to practice to law in Wisconsin is reinstated, 
and until further order of the court, he shall be subject to the 
following conditions: 
 Within 60 days of his reinstatement, Attorney 
Horsch must provide to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation 
signed 
medical 
releases 
of 
confidentiality for each treatment provider who 
has provided or is providing alcohol-related or 
substance abuse-related treatment, assessment or 
services to Attorney Horsch during the past five 
years, so that the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
and each provider can share pertinent information 
related to Attorney Horsch, such releases to 
No. 
2015AP1928-D   
 
14 
 
remain in effect for two years from the date 
Attorney Horsch signs the releases; 
 Within 60 days of his reinstatement, Attorney 
Horsch must, at his own expense, participate in 
an alcohol and other drug abuse (AODA) and mental 
health assessment by a person of the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation's choosing, which shall make 
specific written recommendations, if appropriate, 
for Attorney Horsch's treatment or maintenance.  
The assessment must be provided to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation; 
 Attorney Horsch must submit to monitoring within 
30 days of the date of the assessment, as 
directed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation; and 
for a period of two years beginning on the date 
of his entry into a monitoring program must 
comply 
with 
all 
monitoring 
requirements, 
including 
all 
requirements 
determined 
to 
be 
appropriate by the Wisconsin Lawyers' Assistance 
Program 
(WisLAP) 
or 
the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation's designated monitor; 
 Attorney Horsch must refrain from the consumption 
of alcohol and any mood-altering drugs without a 
valid prescription while subject to monitoring. 
¶30 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
Robert 
W. 
Horsch's 
administrative suspension for failure to pay State Bar dues, 
noncompliance with continuing legal education requirements, and 
failure to submit the required trust account certification to 
the State Bar shall remain in effect.   
 
No.  2015AP1928-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
 
¶31 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   (concurring in part and 
dissenting in part).  A criminal conviction of OWI by a 
Wisconsin 
licensed 
lawyer 
does 
not 
in 
and 
of 
itself 
automatically constitute professional misconduct.  See State v. 
Adent, 2016 WI 19, ¶18, 367 Wis. 2d 372, 877 N.W.2d 364 
(Abrahamson, J., dissenting).  Although I agree with many parts 
of the per curiam, I conclude that imposing a 60-day suspension 
in light of Attorney Horsch's prior disciplinary history, 
including a private reprimand for a criminal conviction of OWI, 
third offense, is an insufficient sanction. 
 
 
No.  2015AP1928-D.ssa 
 
 
 
1