Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Paul G. Belke
Citation: 2015 WI 41
Docket Number: 2014AP000041-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: April 24, 2015

2015 WI 41 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP41-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Paul G. Belke, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Paul G. Belke, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BELKE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 24, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 41
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2014AP41-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Paul G. Belke, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Paul G. Belke, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 24, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule (SCR) 22.17(2), the report of the referee, James C. Boll, 
recommending that the court suspend Attorney Paul G. Belke's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 90 days for 
13 counts of misconduct, and also recommending that Attorney 
Belke be required to continue to participate in a monitoring 
contract with the Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program (WisLAP) 
No. 
2014AP41-D   
 
2 
 
and comply with the contract conditions relating to assessment 
and treatment. 
¶2 
Upon careful review of the matter, we adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  We conclude, 
however, that a four-month suspension of Attorney Belke's 
license is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct.  We agree 
that 
Attorney 
Belke 
should 
be 
required 
to 
continue 
to 
participate in a WisLAP monitoring contract.  We also agree with 
the referee that the full costs of the proceeding, which are 
$3,316.55 as of February 10, 2015, should be assessed against 
Attorney Belke. 
¶3 
Attorney Belke was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1996.  His address on file with the State Bar of 
Wisconsin is Princeton, Wisconsin.  He has no prior disciplinary 
history.   
¶4 
On January 7, 2014, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint alleging that Attorney Belke committed 
13 counts of misconduct.  Attorney Belke filed an answer on 
February 26, 2014.  Referee Boll was appointed on June 3, 2014. 
¶5 
On September 8, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation 
whereby Attorney Belke withdrew his answer to the complaint and 
pled no contest to each of the misconduct allegations contained 
in the OLR's complaint.1  The parties agreed to oral argument 
before the referee only as to the appropriate sanction.  The 
                                                 
1 An amended stipulation was filed on January 26, 2015. 
No. 
2014AP41-D   
 
3 
 
oral argument before the referee took place on December 15, 
2014.  The referee issued his final decision on January 22, 
2015. 
¶6 
The referee noted that the allegations in the OLR's 
complaint 
involved 
Attorney 
Belke's 
conviction 
for 
seven 
misdemeanor counts.  According to the OLR's complaint, on 
August 10, 2010, a deputy sheriff responded to a call of an 
intoxicated person, later identified as Attorney Belke, in the 
General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee.  As a 
result of his conduct, Attorney Belke was arrested and charged 
with misdemeanor disorderly conduct.  He entered a guilty plea 
and was convicted of misdemeanor disorderly conduct.  His 
sentence included one day in jail and a $500 fine.  Attorney 
Belke failed to notify the OLR of his misdemeanor disorderly 
conduct conviction. 
¶7 
On September 13, 2010, law enforcement responded to a 
domestic disturbance between Attorney Belke and his mother in 
Princeton, where both apparently lived.  As a result of his 
conduct, 
Attorney 
Belke 
was 
arrested 
and 
charged 
with 
misdemeanor counts of criminal damage to property (domestic 
abuse) and disorderly conduct (domestic abuse).  At his initial 
appearance, Attorney Belke signed a $1,000 signature bond with 
conditions that he maintain absolute sobriety and not be on any 
premises licensed to sell alcohol by the drink.   
¶8 
On the same day that Attorney Belke was released from 
the Green Lake County jail and had made an initial appearance in 
the 
case, 
law 
enforcement 
responded 
to 
another 
domestic 
No. 
2014AP41-D   
 
4 
 
disturbance between Attorney Belke and his mother at their home.  
Breath alcohol tests performed on Attorney Belke showed that he 
had consumed alcohol in violation of the terms of his bond 
agreement.  As a result, he was arrested and charged with 
misdemeanor counts of bail jumping and disorderly conduct 
(domestic abuse).  At his initial appearance, he signed a $2,500 
signature bond agreement with conditions that he maintain 
absolute sobriety, not be on any premises licensed to sell 
alcohol by the drink, and move out of his mother's residence 
within 14 days.   
¶9 
On September 25, 2010, City of Madison police stopped 
Attorney Belke in Madison, and he was charged with misdemeanor 
charges of operating while intoxicated and operating with a 
prohibited alcohol content (both second offenses).  Pursuant to 
a no-contest plea entered in January of 2011, Attorney Belke was 
convicted of misdemeanor operating while intoxicated (second 
offense).  The operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration 
charge was dismissed on the prosecutor's motion.  Attorney 
Belke's sentence included 30 days in jail with Huber privileges, 
a driver license revocation for 17 months, and ignition 
interlock for 17 months.  He was also ordered to undergo an 
alcohol assessment and pay a fine.  Attorney Belke failed to 
notify the OLR of his misdemeanor operating while intoxicated 
(second offense) conviction. 
¶10 On February 14, 2011, Attorney Belke pled no contest 
to and was convicted of both disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) 
charges.  The remaining charges, criminal damage to property 
No. 
2014AP41-D   
 
5 
 
(domestic abuse) and bail jumping, were dismissed but read-in at 
sentencing.  Attorney Belke's combined sentence included seven 
days in jail and court costs.  He was also allowed to move back 
into his mother's residence.  Attorney Belke failed to notify 
the OLR of his two misdemeanor disorderly conduct (domestic 
abuse) convictions. 
¶11 On June 6, 2012, law enforcement responded to a 
domestic disturbance between Attorney Belke and his mother at 
their Princeton residence.  As a result of his conduct, Attorney 
Belke was arrested and charged with one count of misdemeanor 
disorderly conduct (domestic abuse).  At his initial appearance, 
he pled guilty.  A sentencing hearing was scheduled for June 26, 
2012.  Attorney Belke signed a $1,000 signature bond agreement 
with conditions that he maintain absolute sobriety, have no 
contact with his mother and her residence, and appear at all 
court proceedings. 
¶12 Attorney Belke failed to appear at his June 26, 2012 
sentencing hearing and a warrant was issued.  The following day, 
he was charged with one count of misdemeanor bail jumping.  Law 
enforcement went to the Princeton residence to execute the 
warrant on June 28, 2012.  Upon arrival, Attorney Belke's mother 
allowed the police officers into the basement where Attorney 
Belke was sleeping.  Attorney Belke was arrested.  Officers 
detected an odor of intoxicants emanating from him.  Breath 
alcohol tests performed both in the squad car and at the jail 
demonstrated that Attorney Belke had consumed alcohol in 
No. 
2014AP41-D   
 
6 
 
violation of the terms of his bond agreement in the Green Lake 
County case.   
¶13 On June 29, 2012, Attorney Belke was charged with one 
count of misdemeanor bail jumping.  At his initial appearance, 
he confirmed receipt of the criminal complaints in the Green 
Lake County cases.  On July 2, 2012, he signed a $500 signature 
bond agreement with conditions that he maintain absolute 
sobriety, not be on any premises licensed to sell alcohol by the 
drink, and have no contact with his mother and her residence.  
He also posted a $500 cash bond with identical conditions in the 
other misdemeanor bail jumping case. 
¶14 On July 3, 2012, a police officer identified Attorney 
Belke outside of a bar in Princeton.  The officer made contact 
with Attorney Belke and a breath alcohol test performed on him 
demonstrated that he had consumed alcohol in violation of the 
terms of his various bond agreements.  As a result, Attorney 
Belke was arrested.  He posted a $1,000 cash bond with 
conditions that he maintain absolute sobriety and not be on any 
premises licensed to sell alcohol by the drink.  On July 6, 
2012, he was charged with three counts of misdemeanor bail 
jumping. 
¶15 On August 14, 2012, pursuant to a plea agreement, 
Attorney Belke pled no contest to and was convicted of the 
misdemeanor disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) charge that 
arose out of the June 6, 2012 domestic disturbance between 
Attorney Belke and his mother.  He also pled no contest to two 
misdemeanor bail jumping charges arising out of the July 3, 2012 
No. 
2014AP41-D   
 
7 
 
arrest.  The remaining bail jumping charges were dismissed but 
read-in at sentencing.  Attorney Belke's sentence included two 
years of probation with sentence withheld and conditions that he 
not possess any firearms, maintain absolute sobriety, not be on 
any premises licensed to sell alcohol by the drink, not possess 
any alcohol where he resides, undergo and comply with an alcohol 
and drug assessment, not have any violent contact with his 
mother, maintain full-time employment, and abide by any other 
rules or recommendations as imposed by the supervising probation 
agent.  Attorney Belke failed to notify the OLR of his 
misdemeanor disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) conviction and 
his two misdemeanor bail jumping convictions. 
¶16 On September 23, 2012, a deputy responded to a roll-
over vehicle crash in Marquette County.  Upon arrival, the 
deputy located the vehicle and its driver and sole occupant, 
later identified as Attorney Belke.  A witness to the accident 
smelled intoxicants on Attorney Belke's breath.  Emergency 
medical service personnel reported intoxicants.  Attorney Belke 
was transported to a hospital for treatment, where a chemical 
test of his blood showed his blood alcohol level to be .283.  On 
October 29, 2012, Attorney Belke was charged with operating 
while intoxicated (third offense), operating with a prohibited 
alcohol content (third offense), and ignition interlock device 
tampering/failure to install.  On June 12, 2013, Attorney Belke 
pled no contest to and was convicted of misdemeanor operating 
while intoxicated (third offense).  The other charges were 
dismissed on the prosecutor's motion.  His sentence included 120 
No. 
2014AP41-D   
 
8 
 
days in jail with Huber privileges, a driver license revocation 
for 32 months, and ignition interlock for 32 months.  He was 
also ordered to undergo an alcohol assessment and pay a fine. 
¶17 The OLR's complaint alleged and, by virtue of the 
stipulation, Attorney Belke pled no contest to the following 
counts of misconduct: 
[Count One]  By engaging in conduct leading to 
his 
August 
26, 
2010 
misdemeanor 
conviction 
of 
disorderly conduct in Milwaukee County . . . that 
reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or 
fitness as a lawyer in other respects, [Attorney] 
Belke violated SCR 20:8.4(b).2 
[Count Two]  By engaging in conduct leading to 
his 
January 
3, 
2011 
misdemeanor 
conviction 
of 
Operating While Intoxicated (2nd) in Dane County . . . 
that 
reflects 
adversely 
on 
his 
honesty, 
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 20:8.4(b). 
[Count Three]  By engaging in conduct leading to 
his 
February 
14, 
2011 
misdemeanor 
conviction 
of 
disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) in Green Lake 
County . . . that reflects adversely on his honesty, 
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 20:8.4(b). 
[Count Four]  By engaging in conduct leading to 
his 
February 
14, 
2011 
misdemeanor 
conviction 
of 
disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) in Green Lake 
County . . . that reflects adversely on his honesty, 
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 20:8.4(b). 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides that 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. 
2014AP41-D   
 
9 
 
[Count Five]  Be engaging in conduct leading to 
his 
August 
14, 
1012 
misdemeanor 
conviction 
of 
disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) in Green Lake 
County . . . that reflects adversely on his honesty, 
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 20:8.4(b). 
[Count Six]  In each instance, by engaging in 
conduct leading to his August 14, 2012 two-count 
misdemeanor conviction of bail jumping in Green Lake 
County . . . that reflects adversely on his honesty, 
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 20:8.4(b). 
[Count Seven]  By engaging in conduct leading to 
his June 12, 2013 misdemeanor conviction of Operating 
While Intoxicated (3rd) in Marquette County . . . that 
reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or 
fitness as a lawyer in other respects, [Attorney] 
Belke violated SCR 20:8.4(b). 
[Count 
Eight] 
 
By 
failing 
to 
report 
his 
misdemeanor 
conviction 
of 
disorderly 
conduct 
in 
Milwaukee County . . . to OLR and the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 21.15(5),3 
enforced under SCR 20:8.4(f).4 
                                                 
3 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 
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 clerk of the supreme 
court of being found guilty or his or her conviction 
is misconduct. 
4 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides 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." 
No. 
2014AP41-D   
 
10 
 
[Count 
Nine] 
 
By 
failing 
to 
report 
his 
misdemeanor conviction of Operating While Intoxicated 
(2nd) in Dane County . . . to OLR and the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 21.15(5), 
enforced under SCR 20:8.4(f). 
[Count Ten]  By failing to report his misdemeanor 
conviction of disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) in 
Green Lake County . . . to OLR and the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 21.15(5), 
enforced under SCR 20:8.4(f). 
[Count 11]  By failing to report his misdemeanor 
conviction of disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) in 
Green Lake County . . . to OLR and the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 21.15(5), 
enforced under SCR 20:8.4(f). 
[Count 12]  By failing to report his misdemeanor 
conviction of disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) in 
Green Lake County . . . to OLR and the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 21.15(5), 
enforced under SCR 20:8.4(f). 
[Count 13]  By failing to report his two-count 
misdemeanor conviction of bail jumping in Green Lake 
County . . . to OLR and the Clerk of the Supreme 
Court, 
[Attorney] 
Belke 
violated 
SCR 
21.15(5), 
enforced under SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶18 The OLR sought a four-month suspension.  Attorney 
Belke argued that a public reprimand was an appropriate level of 
discipline.  The referee concluded that a 90-day suspension was 
appropriate.  While the referee said he believed that the facts 
supported 
a 
conclusion 
that 
Attorney 
Belke's 
conduct 
demonstrated a significant lapse in judgment and self-discipline 
and also demonstrated a disregard for public safety, the referee 
concluded that cases cited by the OLR in which attorneys' 
licenses were suspended for six months presented more egregious 
No. 
2014AP41-D   
 
11 
 
fact situations, either because they involved felonies or 
because the attorneys' misconduct involved fraud.   
¶19 The referee noted that Attorney Belke's conduct did 
not involve dishonesty or failure to represent clients.  The 
referee also noted that Attorney Belke has been in compliance 
with all treatment recommendations of all substance abuse 
providers, has abstained from all alcohol or other mood-altering 
substances, and has regularly participated in community-based 
support groups, such as Alcoholics Anonymous.  The referee also 
pointed to Attorney Belke's lack of any prior disciplinary 
history.  Based on what the referee termed "these mitigating 
factors," the referee concluded that a 90-day suspension was 
appropriate.  As a condition, the referee recommends that 
Attorney Belke continue to participate in a monitoring contract 
with WisLAP and that he comply with the contract conditions 
relating to assessment and treatment. 
¶20 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
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 Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.   
¶21 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact are clearly erroneous.  Accordingly, we adopt them.  We 
also agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney 
Belke violated the supreme court rules set forth above.   
No. 
2014AP41-D   
 
12 
 
¶22 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, 
upon careful review of the matter, we conclude that the four-
month suspension originally sought by the OLR is appropriate.  
While the referee correctly points out that Attorney Belke has 
no prior disciplinary history and that his misconduct does not 
involve dishonesty or a failure to adequately represent his 
clients, the conduct at issue here is nevertheless troubling.  
We agree with the referee that Attorney Belke's multiple 
operating while intoxicated convictions, multiple misdemeanor 
convictions of disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) involving his 
mother, and multiple bail jumping convictions demonstrate a very 
significant lapse in judgment and a very serious disregard for 
public safety.  While no two attorney disciplinary matters are 
precisely analogous, we find In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Cahill, 219 Wis. 2d 330, 579 N.W.2d 231 (1998) to be 
somewhat similar.   
¶23 In Cahill, during a 16-month period, the attorney 
engaged in conduct that led to eight misdemeanor convictions, 
including 
operating 
a 
motor 
vehicle 
while 
intoxicated, 
defrauding an innkeeper, disorderly conduct, and issuing a 
worthless check.  The referee in the instant case cited Cahill 
in his report and commented that Attorney Cahill's misconduct 
was more serious than Attorney Belke's because Attorney Cahill 
was convicted of an additional misdemeanor and because her 
misconduct involved fraud.  As in the instant case, none of the 
offenses of which Attorney Cahill was convicted involved a 
client or her conduct as a lawyer.   
No. 
2014AP41-D   
 
13 
 
¶24 While we agree with the referee that the number of 
misdemeanor convictions and the nature of the convictions in 
this case may be somewhat less serious than in Cahill, we 
nevertheless conclude that the 90-day suspension recommended by 
the referee would be insufficient to impress upon Attorney Belke 
the seriousness of his misconduct and deter him and others from 
committing similar misconduct in the future.  The attorney in 
Cahill received a six-month suspension for conduct that was 
arguably more egregious than that at issue here.  We conclude 
that a four-month suspension of Attorney Belke's license to 
practice law is more commensurate with the number and nature of 
offenses at issue than the 90-day suspension recommended by the 
referee. 
¶25 We agree with the referee that Attorney Belke should 
be required to continue to participate in a monitoring contract 
with WisLAP and to comply with all contract conditions relating 
to assessment and treatment.  We further agree with the referee 
that Attorney Belke should be required to pay the full costs of 
the proceeding. 
¶26 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Paul G. Belke to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of four 
months, effective May 24, 2015. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law following the 
suspension and as a condition of his continued practice of law 
thereafter, Paul G. Belke shall be required to continue to 
participate in a monitoring contract with the Wisconsin Lawyers 
No. 
2014AP41-D   
 
14 
 
Assistance Program and to fully comply with all contract 
conditions.  Attorney Belke shall continue to participate in the 
monitoring contract for a period of one year after the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law following the 
termination of the suspension. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Paul G. Belke shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $3,316.55. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Paul G. Belke 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. 
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
No. 
2014AP41-D   
 
 
 
1