Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. William J. Spangler
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2014AP002633-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 8, 2016

2016 WI 61 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP2633-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against William J. Spangler, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
William J. Spangler, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SPANGLER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 8, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:     
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 61
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2014AP2633-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against William J. Spangler, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
William J. Spangler, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 8, 2016 
 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.    Attorney's license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report and supplemental 
report filed by referee James R. Erickson recommending that 
Attorney William J. Spangler's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be suspended for 60 days for seven counts of 
professional misconduct involving two client matters.  The 
referee also recommends that Attorney Spangler pay the full 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
2 
 
costs of the proceeding, which are $6,678.43 as of March 29, 
2016. 
¶2 
Upon careful review of the matter, we adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  We conclude, 
however, that rather than the 60-day suspension stipulated by 
the parties and recommended by the referee, a six-month 
suspension of Attorney Spangler's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin is the appropriate sanction for his misconduct.  We 
also agree with the referee that the full costs of the 
proceeding should be assessed against Attorney Spangler.  
¶3 
Attorney Spangler was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2003 and practices in Eau Claire.  He has no prior 
disciplinary history.  
¶4 
On November 13, 2014, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney Spangler alleging four 
counts 
of 
misconduct 
arising 
out 
of 
Attorney 
Spangler's 
representation of F.M.  The complaint averred that in June 2007, 
Attorney Spangler filed a lawsuit on behalf of F.M. in Eau 
Claire County circuit court.  Attorney Spangler was not able to 
obtain service of an authenticated copy of the summons and 
complaint on the defendant, and the case was dismissed.  
Attorney Spangler refiled the complaint in August 2008.  This 
time the defendant was served.  The lawsuit alleged that F.M. 
and the defendant had an oral partnership to purchase real 
estate and that F.M. had provided funds to purchase and build a 
condominium 
fourplex. 
 
F.M. 
sought 
an 
accounting 
and/or 
dissolution of the partnership.  The parties agreed to the 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
3 
 
termination of the partnership relationship but not to the 
specific terms of dissolution.  The lawsuit continued for the 
purpose of obtaining a court determination as to the respective 
rights and property ownership of the parties.  
¶5 
The circuit court allowed the parties a significant 
amount of time to discuss settlement of the matter.  In late 
2009 a scheduling order was issued setting the matter for a one-
day trial to the court on April 20, 2010.  In correspondence to 
the Eau Claire County clerk of circuit court dated April 12, 
2010, Attorney Spangler stated that the parties had reached a 
settlement and that F.M. desired to dismiss the lawsuit.  
Attorney Spangler copied opposing counsel on this letter but did 
not copy F.M.  The court signed an order dismissing the matter 
without prejudice to either party on April 14, 2010, and the 
order was filed the following day.  
¶6 
Attorney Spangler had not consulted with F.M. or 
obtained F.M.'s approval prior to proposing and agreeing to the 
dismissal of the lawsuit, nor did he inform his client that the 
suit had been dismissed.  Instead, Attorney Spangler made a 
series of misrepresentations and created a series of false 
documents to mislead his client as to the status of the lawsuit 
and its outcome.   
¶7 
In November 2010, despite knowing that the suit had 
been dismissed, Attorney Spangler spoke to F.M. by telephone and 
represented to him that a judgment had been obtained in F.M.'s 
favor but that collecting on the judgment would be difficult 
given the state of the real estate market at the time and the 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
4 
 
defendant's financial situation. To support his claim to F.M. 
that a judgment had been obtained, Attorney Spangler created 
fake findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order in the 
matter dated October 14, 2009.  While Attorney Spangler did not 
forge the judge's signature on the document, he entered "/s/" on 
the signature line above the judge's name.  Attorney Spangler 
did not provide this document to anyone but F.M.  Attorney 
Spangler also created a fake judgment in the case, stating that 
F.M. "shall be repaid his initial investment in an amount of 
$102,000" and F.M. "does have an [sic] recover of defendant 
taxable costs and disbursement in the amount of $84,243."  
Again, Attorney Spangler did not forge the judge's actual 
signature on the fake judgment, but on the signature line above 
the judge's name entered "/s/." Again, Attorney Spangler did not 
provide this document to anyone but F.M.  
¶8 
F.M. subsequently asked Attorney Spangler to pursue 
the defendant's insurance company for payment.  Attorney 
Spangler prepared a demand letter addressed to the insurance 
company, dated June 17, 2011.  The letter referred to previous 
correspondence from Attorney Spangler to the insurance company 
and stated a demand for $200,000.  The letter stated that in the 
absence of payment of the demand amount within ten days, 
Attorney Spangler would proceed with legal action against the 
insurance company.  While the letter indicated it was being 
copied to F.M., the Wisconsin commissioner of insurance, and 
counsel for the defendant, Attorney Spangler did not provide a 
copy of the letter to anyone but F.M.  
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
5 
 
¶9 
On August 1, 2011, Attorney Spangler prepared and 
signed a letter facially addressed to the Eau Claire County 
clerk of court purportedly enclosing an original and four copies 
of a complaint against the insurance company.  Attorney Spangler 
also prepared and signed with a date of July 29, 2011, a civil 
complaint against the insurance company.  The complaint that 
Attorney Spangler drafted and provided to F.M. in the purported 
action against the insurance company also showed a fabricated 
file stamp indicating that the civil complaint was filed in Eau 
Claire County circuit court on August 9, 2011.  Attorney 
Spangler did not provide these documents to anyone but F.M.  He 
never filed the cover letter or the civil complaint in circuit 
court but instead used those documents to mislead F.M. as to the 
status of the representation and the steps taken on the client's 
behalf.  
¶10 On May 6, 2010, Attorney Spangler created a fake order 
suspending license purporting to suspend a real estate license 
held by the defendant.  The fake order was purportedly issued by 
the chair of the Wisconsin Realty Board.  Attorney Spangler did 
not forge an actual signature on the fake suspension order that 
he created, but on the signature line above the chair's name, 
Attorney Spangler typed "/William H. Hendricks/."  There was no 
proceeding resulting in an order of suspension against the 
defendant, and "Wisconsin Realty Board" is not the name of any 
Wisconsin regulatory entity.   
¶11 Prior to December 2011, while Attorney Spangler was 
still trying to perpetuate the fraud of having obtained a 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
6 
 
judgment and pursued collection, he provided F.M. with at least 
$45,000 of his own money as funds purportedly obtained toward 
partial satisfaction of the fake judgment.  
¶12 F.M. eventually consulted with other counsel and in 
December of 2011, Attorney Spangler's lies and fabrications came 
to light.  In late December 2011, the defendant's counsel was 
contacted by F.M.'s new attorneys and was provided with copies 
of at least some of the fake documents created by Attorney 
Spangler.  On or about December 30, 2011, the defendant's 
counsel contacted and then met with Attorney Spangler, who 
admitted he had drafted a series of false documents relating to 
the case.  Attorney Spangler and counsel for the defendant each 
then promptly notified the court in writing of the fabricated 
documents that Attorney Spangler had produced.   
¶13 F.M.'s civil claims against Attorney Spangler were 
resolved pursuant to a January 2012 settlement agreement and 
release, 
whereby 
Attorney 
Spangler 
agreed 
to 
execute 
a 
promissory note and pay F.M. the sum of $125,000.   Attorney 
Spangler satisfied the promissory note in December 2012. 
¶14 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Spangler's representation of 
F.M.: 
[Count 1]  By agreeing to the dismissal of [F.M.'s Eau 
Claire County lawsuit], without having consulted with 
his client, [F.M.], or having his client's consent to 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
7 
 
the stipulated dismissal of the lawsuit, [Attorney] 
Spangler violated SCR 20:1.2(a).1 
[Count 2]  By agreeing to the dismissal of [F.M.'s Eau 
Claire County lawsuit], without having consulted with 
his client, [F.M.], or having obtained his client's 
consent to the stipulated dismissal of the lawsuit, 
[Attorney] Spangler violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(1) and (2).2 
[Count 3]  By failing to provide [F.M.] with accurate 
information as to case status and his efforts taken on 
[F.M.'s] behalf, [Attorney] Spangler violated SCR 
20:1.4(a)(3).3 
 
[Count 
4] 
 
By 
intentionally 
providing 
false 
information to [F.M.] regarding case status and his 
efforts taken on [F.M.'s] behalf, and further, by 
creating fake documents to lend support to the 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.2(a) provides: 
Subject to pars. (c) and (d), a lawyer shall abide by 
a client's decisions concerning the objectives of 
representation and, as required by SCR 20:1.4, shall 
consult with the client as to the means by which they 
are to be pursued.  A lawyer may take such action on 
behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to 
carry out the representation.  A lawyer shall abide by 
a client's decision whether to settle a matter.  In a 
criminal case or any proceeding that could result in 
deprivation of liberty, the lawyer shall abide by the 
client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, 
as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury 
trial and whether the client will testify.   
2 SCR 20:1.4(a)(1) and (2) provide:  "A lawyer shall: (1) 
Promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with 
respect to which the client's informed consent, as defined in 
SCR 20:1.0(f), is required by these rules; (2) reasonably 
consult with the client about the means by which the client's 
objectives are to be accomplished."  
3 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides that a lawyer shall "keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
8 
 
misrepresentations made to his client, [Attorney] 
Spangler violated SCR 20:8.4(c).4 
¶15 Attorney Spangler filed an answer to the OLR's 
complaint on January 12, 2015.  The referee was appointed on 
January 27, 2015.   
¶16 On April 1, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation 
whereby Attorney Spangler admitted the allegations in the OLR's 
complaint.  The parties jointly recommended the imposition of a 
public reprimand.  The stipulation provided that the referee 
may, if he saw fit, adopt paragraphs 1-27 of the stipulation as 
his findings of fact and adopt paragraphs 28-31 of the 
stipulation as his conclusions of law.  On April 16, 2015, the 
referee issued a report expressly adopting by reference and 
incorporating as though fully set forth in the report paragraphs 
1-31 of the stipulation.  The referee said he was satisfied that 
the parties' agreement for a public reprimand was an appropriate 
level of discipline.   
¶17 On June 23, 2015, this court ordered the parties to 
show cause why a suspension of Attorney Spangler's license, 
rather than a public reprimand, should not be imposed.  The OLR 
filed a response on July 6, 2015.  On August 6, 2015, this court 
                                                 
4 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. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
9 
 
granted Attorney Spangler's motion for an extension of time to 
file a response. On August 26, 2015, the parties filed a joint 
motion to remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings.  The motion averred that counsel for Attorney Spangler 
had informed the OLR that they had received additional documents 
from counsel for Attorney Spangler's former law firm revealing 
an additional possible violation of Wisconsin supreme court 
rules that was substantially the same in nature as the violation 
involved in the pending action and occurring during roughly the 
same time frame as the conduct at issue in the pending 
proceeding.  The parties agreed that the new information would 
be best processed in conjunction with and in the context of the 
existing disciplinary proceeding.  The OLR said it was likely 
that the new information would result in a supplemental or 
amended 
stipulation 
and 
in 
the 
referee 
supplementing 
or 
otherwise amending his report.  This court granted the motion 
for remand to the referee on September 10, 2015.   
¶18 On March 7, 2016, the parties filed an additional 
stipulation 
which 
set 
forth 
three 
additional 
counts 
of 
professional misconduct arising out of Attorney Spangler's 
representation of F.B.  The stipulation stated that between 
September 2003 and February 2011, Attorney Spangler was employed 
as an attorney by the law firm of Weld, Riley, Prenn & Ricci, 
S.C. [Weld Riley] in Eau Claire and practiced in the areas of 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
10 
 
transactional work, real estate work, and some estate planning 
work.  
¶19 The stipulation stated that in December 2006, F.B. 
sent Attorney Spangler a letter saying that he owned 50% of a 
Wisconsin limited liability company, that his partner and 
another person were trying to force him out, and that he would 
like to file suit for breach of contract.  
¶20 The stipulation stated that on or about January 5, 
2007, an attorney of the Weld Riley law firm met with F.B. to 
discuss representing him in regard to the business dispute.  On 
or about January 11, 2007, the Weld Riley attorney sent F.B. an 
engagement letter saying that the attorney and Attorney Spangler 
would be the principal attorneys assigned to the case.   
¶21 On January 22, 2007, Attorney Spangler sent a draft 
complaint to F.B.  Attorney Spangler was also in communication 
with the attorney representing F.B.'s business partners in an 
attempt to negotiate a resolution to the dispute.  During the 
first half of 2007, letters exchanged between Attorney Spangler 
and counsel for the other side did not result in a settlement of 
the disputed issues.  On April 16, 2007, the attorney for F.B.'s 
business partner sent Attorney Spangler a settlement offer in 
the amount of $30,000.  Attorney Spangler transmitted that offer 
to F.B., but the offer was not acceptable to F.B. and he 
rejected it.   
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
11 
 
¶22 On May 19, 2007, Attorney Spangler sent an internal 
memorandum to the head of litigation at Weld Riley, noting that 
the F.B. matter was "a somewhat complicated business divorce" 
that was "now ripe for litigation."  Attorney Spangler asked "if 
someone would be able to handle litigation on this matter" for 
him.  The stipulation avers that Attorney Spangler never wanted 
to handle litigation, did not know what he was doing with 
litigation, and was reaching out to request that one of his 
litigation colleagues handle the matter.   
¶23 Attorney Spangler provided a copy of a draft complaint 
to one of the litigation associates at Weld Riley for review.  
In 
July 
2007, 
a 
draft 
complaint, 
summons, 
and 
letter 
transmitting the complaint to the Eau Claire County circuit 
court clerk were prepared bearing signature lines for the 
litigation associate's signature.  The documents were never sent 
or filed with the court.  On August 14, 2007, Attorney Spangler 
emailed F.B. saying he had received a voice mail message from 
F.B. and that he and his litigation colleague were "finalizing a 
summons and complaint which we can file assuming the liquidation 
took place as we believe it did."  On August 22, 2007, F.B. sent 
Attorney Spangler an email giving him a "green light" on 
drafting the summons and complaint.  
¶24 Attorney Spangler subsequently sent F.B. a draft 
complaint for his review.  The complaint was revised several 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
12 
 
times until F.B. was satisfied with it.  Attorney Spangler 
fabricated a purported letter of transmittal on Weld Riley law 
firm letterhead addressed to the Eau Claire County clerk of 
circuit court stating that an original and three copies of a 
summons and complaint, along with a check in the amount of $256 
in payment of the filing fee, were enclosed.  The purported 
letter was never sent to the clerk of court, but it was sent to 
F.B.  The letter was created by Attorney Spangler for the sole 
purpose of misleading F.B. into believing Attorney Spangler was 
sending the complaint with a summons to the clerk of court 
commencing a lawsuit on F.B.'s behalf.  Attorney Spangler 
printed across the top of each of the eight pages of the 
complaint "cv-1105200704 Monday, November 05, 2007 10:21 EAU 
CLAIRE COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS" to make it appear that such 
complaint had in fact been filed in the Eau Claire County clerk 
of courts' office.  On the first page of the complaint, Attorney 
Spangler affixed a partial ink stamp saying "RECEIVED NOV 05."  
The complaint was never sent to or filed with the Eau Claire 
County clerk of court.  
¶25 Attorney Spangler provided a copy of the transmittal 
letter and complaint to F.B.  F.B. reasonably believed the 
documents to be an authentic filing with the Eau Claire County 
circuit court when, in fact, the documents had been fabricated 
and created only to deceive F.B.  
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
13 
 
¶26 Over the course of approximately five years, Attorney 
Spangler 
continued 
the 
ruse, 
repeatedly 
making 
false 
representations 
to 
F.B. 
about 
developments, 
events, 
and 
occurrences as the non-existing case supposedly progressed.  
Among the reasons that Attorney Spangler told F.B. the case was 
moving slowly were the outcome of a supposed summary judgment 
motion that Attorney Spangler told F.B. he had filed and a 
forthcoming opinion that Attorney Spangler told F.B. the 
Wisconsin supreme court was expected to issue in a case with 
issues relevant to issues in F.B.'s supposed case.   
¶27 When Attorney Spangler left the Weld Riley law firm in 
early 2011 and joined with other attorneys in establishing a new 
law 
firm, 
F.B. 
continued 
as 
Attorney 
Spangler's 
client.  
Attorney Spangler's deception of F.B. ultimately included the 
creation of a false settlement, fabrication of a release, and 
Attorney Spangler's use of his own money to pay F.B. $75,000.  
The money was falsely presented to F.B. as purportedly emanating 
from a settling party when in fact no such settlement existed.   
¶28 The stipulation averred that the OLR's additional fact 
finding revealed that Attorney Spangler committed the following 
counts of misconduct with respect to his representation of F.B.: 
By misleading [F.B.] into believing that he had filed 
and had, for years, been prosecuting a lawsuit on 
[F.B's] behalf against his former business associate, 
in accordance with [F.B.'s] decision to proceed with 
such litigation, when he had, in fact, never filed 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
14 
 
such lawsuit, [Attorney] Spangler failed to abide by 
his client's decision concerning the objectives of 
representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.2(a). 
By informing [F.B.] that he had filed a lawsuit on 
[F.B.'s] behalf against his former business associate; 
he was, for years, actively prosecuting such pending 
lawsuit; 
and 
[F.B.'s] 
case 
was 
settled 
by 
the 
defendants paying $80,000 with an exchange of releases 
when [Attorney] Spangler knew no lawsuit had ever been 
filed, [Attorney] Spangler failed to keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter, 
contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a)(3, and also that [Attorney] 
Spangler failed to explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make an 
informed decision regarding the misrepresentation, 
contrary to SCR 20:1.4(b).5 
By fabricating a false complaint and a bogus letter of 
transmittal to the Clerk of Court which was provided 
to 
[F.B.] 
with 
the 
intent 
to 
deceive 
him, 
by 
intentionally misrepresenting to [F.B.] that a lawsuit 
had been filed on his behalf and was, for years, being 
prosecuted against his former business associate, by 
falsely leading his client to believe that a motion 
for summary judgment was filed  and denied by the 
Court and by falsely informing [F.B.] that his former 
business associate had paid $80,000 in connection with 
a settlement of the lawsuit and the signing of 
releases, 
[Attorney] 
Spangler 
engaged 
in 
conduct 
involving dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation, in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶29 The stipulation noted that Attorney Spangler's counsel 
forwarded four affidavits on Attorney Spangler's behalf, which 
were reviewed and considered by the OLR director.  The 
affidavits included testimony from two character witnesses who 
have known Attorney Spangler personally and professionally, an 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides:  "A lawyer shall explain a matter 
to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation." 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
15 
 
affidavit of Attorney Spangler's counsel regarding counsel's 
communications with F.B., who advised Attorney Spangler's 
counsel that he was satisfied with the $75,000 he received from 
Attorney Spangler as a settlement for the lawsuit that was never 
brought, and an affidavit of Attorney Spangler in which he notes 
the professional and personal cost he has borne because of his 
actions.  The parties agreed and stipulated that a 60-day 
suspension of Attorney Spangler's license to practice law was an 
appropriate sanction for his misconduct.  The parties requested 
the referee to approve the additional stipulation and file a 
supplemental or amended report and recommendation.  
¶30 On March 7, 2016, the referee filed a supplemental 
report 
adopting 
paragraphs 
numbered 
1-23 
in 
the 
second 
stipulation as additional findings of fact and adopting as 
conclusions of law paragraphs 24a-24c of the second stipulation. 
¶31 The referee agreed with the parties that a 60-day 
suspension of Attorney Spangler's license was an appropriate 
sanction. While the referee agreed that Attorney Spangler 
clearly breached his legal duties to his clients, the legal 
profession, the public interest, and the rules of professional 
conduct, the referee noted that Attorney Spangler "has stepped 
forward 
as 
a 
responsible 
person 
by 
fully 
admitting 
his 
professional failures."  The referee also noted Attorney 
Spangler has provided financial recompense to the satisfaction 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
16 
 
of his client.  In addition, the referee said the three 
affidavits supplied by Attorney Spangler were further evidence 
of the high community respect for Attorney Spangler.  The 
referee said: 
The sad thing about this whole matter is that there 
was no need for [Attorney Spangler] to mislead his 
client.  All that [Attorney Spangler] needed to do was 
to admit to his law firm that he felt incapable of 
taking on and initiating contested litigation.  If the 
law firm was unsympathetic, he could have expressed 
his regrets to his client and turned down the case, 
referring the client to outside counsel.  Instead, he 
took on years of subterfuge in misleading the client. 
¶32 Considering all of the rather unusual circumstances 
involved, the referee agreed with the parties that a 60-day 
suspension was an appropriate sanction.  The referee also 
recommended that Attorney Spangler pay the costs of the 
proceeding.   
¶33 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.   
¶34 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact are clearly erroneous.  Accordingly, we adopt them.  We 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
17 
 
also agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney 
Spangler violated the supreme court rules set forth above.  
¶35 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, 
upon careful review of the matter, we conclude that a 60-day 
suspension is an inadequate sanction.  Attorney Spangler's 
actions in the two cases at issue here are troubling.  Attorney 
Spangler engaged in an elaborate web of deception that included 
creating false documents and meticulously adding fake file 
stamps and other notations to make them appear to be genuine.  
He managed to perpetuate his ruses for years, leading his 
clients to believe that they had live lawsuits pending when, in 
fact, Attorney Spangler had voluntarily dismissed F.M.'s suit 
and never filed F.B.'s action.   
¶36 In many cases that come before this court, an attorney 
accepts a retainer and then fails to do the work for which he or 
she was retained.  Such behavior is undoubtedly serious, but it 
is a passive type of error. Attorney Spangler's conduct in 
creating a series of false documents for the sole purpose of 
misleading his clients into believing that they had lawsuits 
pending was an affirmative act of deception and a betrayal of 
the trust his clients placed in him.   
¶37 We recognize that there are a number of mitigating 
factors here.  Attorney Spangler has no prior disciplinary 
history.  The conduct at issue occurred between 2007 and 2011.  
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
18 
 
We note that in its response to this court's order to show 
cause, the OLR commented that Attorney Spangler had alerted the 
OLR to some significant family concerns and problems and, 
according to Attorney Spangler, F.M. turned out to be a 
difficult client with whom Attorney Spangler did not feel he 
could be candid once he concluded F.M.'s case was not as strong 
as Attorney Spangler initially thought.  We also note that 
Attorney Spangler has repeatedly expressed remorse for his 
misconduct and he has paid restitution to both clients.  We have 
also reviewed the affidavits filed on Attorney Spangler's behalf 
and note that the affiants speak highly of him and find him to 
be trustworthy.  Nonetheless, the seriousness of the misconduct 
at issue here leads us to conclude that a suspension in excess 
of 60 days is warranted.   
¶38 Although 
no 
two 
disciplinary 
proceedings 
are 
identical, we note that on at least two prior occasions, we 
disciplined attorneys who falsified documents.  In In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fitzgerald, 2006 WI 58, 290 
Wis. 2d 713, 714 N.W.2d 925, an attorney told her client that an 
insurance company was willing to settle her claims for a payment 
of some $5,000 and that the insurance company would also pay the 
client's medical bills when, in fact, no such offer was ever 
made.  To perpetuate the ruse that a settlement had been made, 
the attorney deposited personal funds into her business account 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
19 
 
and then transferred those funds to her trust account for the 
purpose of using the funds to pay her client her proportionate 
share of the purported settlement.  The attorney was suspended 
for 90 days.  She had no prior disciplinary history. 
¶39 In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mauch, 2007 
WI 109, 304 Wis. 2d 541, 736 N.W.2d 141, an attorney deceived a 
client into believing his case had been settled and used his own 
funds to pay the alleged settlement.  The attorney's license was 
suspended for 90 days.  Attorney Mauch had previously been 
publicly reprimanded on two occasions.   
 
¶40 Even 
though 
Attorney 
Spangler 
has 
no 
prior 
disciplinary 
history 
and 
even 
though 
we 
acknowledge 
the 
existence of various other mitigating factors, we conclude that 
the misconduct at issue here is more serious than the misconduct 
at issue in either Fitzgerald or Mauch and calls for a more 
severe sanction.  The ruses in Fitzgerald and Mauch were of 
relatively short duration and involved only one case.  By 
contrast, Attorney Spangler falsified documents in two cases 
and, over the span of years, created a whole host of documents 
for the sole purpose of misleading his clients into believing 
that their suits were pending when in fact they were not.  
Accordingly, we conclude that a six-month suspension of Attorney 
Spangler's 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin 
is 
an 
appropriate sanction.  A six-month suspension, which will 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
20 
 
require Attorney Spangler to file a petition for reinstatement, 
see SCR 22.28(3), will impress upon him the seriousness of his 
misconduct and deter other attorneys from engaging in similar 
misconduct in the future.  We agree with the referee that 
Attorney Spangler should bear the full costs of this proceeding.  
 
¶41 IT IS ORDERED that the license of William J. Spangler 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective August 12, 2016. 
 
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, William J. Spangler shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$6,678.43. 
 
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William J. Spangler shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended.  
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See SCR 
22.28(2).  
 
 
 
 
No. 
2014AP2633-D   
 
 
 
1