Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Suzanne E. Kitto
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2017AP001887-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 19, 2018

2018 WI 71 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2017AP1887-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Suzanne E. Kitto, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Suzanne E. Kitto, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KITTO 
 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 19, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2018 WI 71
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP1887-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Suzanne E. Kitto, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Suzanne E. Kitto, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 19, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
a 
referee's 
report 
and 
recommendation 
concluding 
that 
Attorney 
Suzanne 
E. 
Kitto 
violated the rules of professional conduct in connection with 
her representation of W.C. and C.C.  The referee recommended 
that this court impose a 60-day suspension of Attorney Kitto's 
law license.  We adopt the referee's findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendation regarding discipline.   
We impose the full costs in this matter, which total $1,310.32 
No. 
2017AP1887-D   
 
2 
 
as of April 17, 2018.  We do not impose restitution, as the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has confirmed that Attorney 
Kitto has made full restitution to W.C. and C.C. 
¶2 
Attorney Kitto was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1972.  She has no disciplinary history. 
¶3 
On September 27, 2017, the OLR filed a complaint 
against Attorney Kitto alleging five counts of professional 
misconduct arising out of her representation of W.C. and C.C.  
Attorney Kitto filed an answer by which she admitted all but one 
of the OLR's factual allegations, affirmatively alleged certain 
additional facts, and admitted all five counts of misconduct.  
This court appointed William Eich to serve as the referee in the 
matter. 
¶4 
Attorney Kitto later entered into a stipulation by 
which she agreed that the referee could use the allegations of 
the complaint as a factual basis for the referee's determination 
of misconduct.  The parties agreed to brief the issue of the 
appropriate level of discipline to be imposed for Attorney 
Kitto's misconduct. 
¶5 
After receiving briefing on the issue of discipline, 
the referee filed a report recommending a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney Kitto's law license.  In noting that the parties had 
stipulated that the OLR complaint provided an adequate factual 
basis for a misconduct determination, the referee implicitly 
incorporated by reference the undisputed allegations in the 
OLR's complaint and deemed them established.  The facts before 
us are, then, as follows. 
No. 
2017AP1887-D   
 
3 
 
¶6 
Starting in July 2013, Attorney Kitto represented W.C. 
and C.C with regard to collection work on a land contract.  The 
other party to the land contract made the land contract payments 
to W.C. and C.C. through Attorney Kitto's office.  W.C. and C.C. 
agreed that Attorney Kitto would collect ten percent of the land 
contract payments for her fees, and would apply the remainder of 
the payments to real estate taxes, the mortgage on the property, 
and property insurance.   
¶7 
Attorney Kitto erred in her caretaking of W.C. and 
C.C.'s funds.  She failed to hold in trust the land contract 
payments that she received on W.C. and C.C.'s behalf.  She also 
converted approximately $10,000 of these payments to her 
personal use.     
¶8 
Attorney 
Kitto 
made 
other 
trust 
fund-related 
violations.  She deposited personal funds into her client trust 
account, ostensibly for later use in paying her own personal 
debts.  Attorney Kitto also disbursed funds from her trust 
account when there were insufficient funds in the account to 
cover the disbursement.  
¶9 
Based on the stipulated facts set forth above, 
Attorney Kitto conceded the following five counts of misconduct: 
 Count 1:  By failing to promptly deliver funds, 
which 
she 
collected 
in 
connection 
with 
her 
representation of W.C. and C.C., to W.C. and C.C. or 
to third parties for W.C. and C.C.'s benefit, 
No. 
2017AP1887-D   
 
4 
 
Attorney Kitto violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1)1 
and current SCR 20:1.15(e)(1).2   
 Count 2:  By failing to hold in trust W.C. and 
C.C.'s funds that she collected in connection with 
her representation of W.C. and C.C., Attorney Kitto 
violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).3 
                                                 
1 Former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1), effective prior to July 1, 2016, 
provided: 
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client has an interest, or in which the lawyer has 
received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or 
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client 
or 3rd party in writing.  Except as stated in this 
rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement 
with the client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to 
the client or 3rd party any funds or other property 
that the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive.   
2 Current SCR 20:1.15(e)(1) provides: 
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client has an interest, or in which a lawyer has 
received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or 
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client 
or 3rd party in writing. Except as stated in this rule 
or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the 
client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to the 
client or 3rd party any funds or other property that 
the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive. 
3 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides: 
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 
3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation.  All funds of 
clients and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm 
in connection with a representation shall be deposited 
in one or more identifiable trust accounts.  
No. 
2017AP1887-D   
 
5 
 
 Count 3:  By converting funds belonging to W.C. and 
C.C. for her own personal use, Attorney Kitto 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c).4   
 Count 
4: 
 
By 
depositing 
and 
retaining 
funds 
belonging to her in her client trust account, 
Attorney Kitto violated former SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).5   
 Count 5:  By disbursing funds from her trust account 
without the funds being available for disbursement, 
Attorney Kitto violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(4)(a).6 
¶10 In its brief on sanctions to the referee, the OLR 
argued that a 60-day suspension is called for by certain of our 
prior cases.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Sarbacker, 2017 WI 86, 377 Wis. 2d 484, 901 N.W.2d 373 (lawyer 
with two previous private reprimands suspended for 60 days based 
on 
six 
counts 
of 
misconduct, 
including 
failing 
to 
hold 
garnishment funds belonging to clients in a trust account and 
misappropriating approximately $2,000 of those funds); In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Lunde, 
2016 
WI 
84, 
372 
Wis. 2d 1, 886 N.W.2d 87 (lawyer with previous public reprimand 
suspended for 60 days based on five counts of misconduct, 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
5 Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(3), effective prior to July 1, 2016, 
provided:  "No funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm, except 
funds reasonably sufficient to pay monthly account service 
charges, may be deposited or retained in a trust account." 
6 SCR 20:1.15(f)(4)(a) provides:  "A lawyer shall not 
disburse funds from any trust account unless the deposit from 
which those funds will be disbursed has cleared, and the funds 
are available for disbursement." 
No. 
2017AP1887-D   
 
6 
 
including failing to hold funds due to a beneficiary of a life 
insurance policy in a trust account, and maintaining a trust 
account balance that fell below the amount of funds received and 
to be held on behalf of the beneficiary); In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Bartz, 2015 WI 61, 362 Wis. 2d 752, 864 
N.W.2d 881 (lawyer with previous private reprimand suspended for 
60 days based on five counts of misconduct, including failing to 
disburse settlement funds and failing to cooperate with an OLR 
investigation).   
¶11 In her brief to the referee, Attorney Kitto requested 
a public reprimand. She emphasized that she had experienced 
health difficulties during the time period in question, and that 
she had relied on her former assistant to ensure that client 
funds were being properly handled.  
¶12 The 
referee 
recommended 
a 
60-day 
suspension 
of 
Attorney Kitto's license in his report.  The referee wrote that 
other cases involving analogous misconduct "have had little 
trouble imposing a 60-day suspension, often . . . noting that 
harsh sanctions should be expected to follow as a warning to 
other lawyers that this type of conduct cannot be tolerated."  
The referee characterized Attorney Kitto's misconduct as serious 
indeed:  W.C. and C.C. were individual clients, and Attorney 
Kitto converted a significant sum of their funds——over $10,000.  
The referee dismissed as factually unsupported Attorney Kitto's 
attempt to assign blame for her trust account-related problems 
to her former assistant.  The referee also noted that, according 
to the OLR's brief on sanctions, it had taken Attorney Kitto's 
No. 
2017AP1887-D   
 
7 
 
medical issues into account in formulating its recommendation 
for a 60-day suspension; thus, the referee did not assign 
additional weight to that factor.  As mitigating factors, the 
referee noted that Attorney Kitto has not been previously 
disciplined; she has fully reimbursed W.C. and C.C.; and she 
cooperated with the OLR's investigation of the charges.  Given 
these facts and the applicable precedent, the referee concluded 
that a 60-day suspension would be appropriate. 
¶13 Neither party appealed the referee's report, so this 
matter is submitted to the court for review pursuant to 
SCR 22.17(2).  We review a referee's findings of fact subject to 
the clearly erroneous standard.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 
675 N.W.2d 747.  We review the referee's conclusions of law de 
novo.  Id.  We determine the appropriate level of discipline 
independent 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. 
¶14 We agree with the referee that a 60-day suspension is 
appropriate.  We find our recent decision in Sarbacker, 377 
Wis. 2d 484, 
to 
be 
particularly 
instructive. 
 
Attorney 
Sarbacker's clients hired him to collect on a money judgment 
they had obtained against a tenant.  Id., ¶¶5-6.  After Attorney 
Sarbacker arranged for the debtor's wages to be garnished, he 
began receiving weekly garnishment checks on behalf of his 
clients.  Id., ¶6.  He deposited some of the checks, totaling 
$892.23, into his trust account, but then disbursed almost all 
No. 
2017AP1887-D   
 
8 
 
of those funds to himself or his law office rather than to his 
clients.  Id., ¶13.  He deposited other checks, totaling 
$1,273.49, directly into his operating account rather than 
disbursing the funds to his clients.  Id.  Attorney Sarbacker 
committed other misdeeds:  he represented the clients pursuant 
to an unwritten contingent fee agreement; he failed to timely 
cooperate with the OLR; and he faced one count of misconduct 
based on his plea of no contest to unrelated misdemeanor charges 
filed against him.  Id., ¶14.  Focusing heavily on the 
conversion allegations, we imposed a 60-day suspension.  Id., 
¶¶23-24.   
¶15 Sarbacker and this case are alike in important ways.  
Both Attorney Kitto and Attorney Sarbacker regularly received 
funds on behalf of their clients, and they regularly mishandled 
the funds in similar fashion, failing to faithfully hold them in 
trust and misappropriating some portion of them.   
¶16 To be sure, the two cases are not exactly alike.  
Attorney Sarbacker had a disciplinary history (two private 
reprimands), whereas Attorney Kitto does not.  Attorney Kitto 
converted a significantly larger amount of funds than did 
Attorney Sarbacker.  Attorney Sarbacker committed certain forms 
of misconduct that Attorney Kitto did not, and vice versa.   
¶17 In the end, however, we find the misconduct here to be 
sufficiently analogous to that in Sarbacker to justify the same 
suspension length:  60 days.  This suspension length is also 
generally supported by other cases cited by the OLR to the 
referee.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proccedings Against 
No. 
2017AP1887-D   
 
9 
 
Lunde, 372 Wis. 2d 1; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Bartz, 362 Wis. 2d 752.   
¶18 We also deem it appropriate, as is our usual custom, 
to impose the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding on 
Attorney Kitto.   
¶19 Finally, 
because 
Attorney 
Kitto 
has 
made 
full 
restitution to W.C. and C.C., the OLR does not seek restitution, 
and we do not impose it. 
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that Suzanne E. Kitto's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective July 31, 2018. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Suzanne E. Kitto shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $1,310.32 as 
of April 17, 2018.   
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent that she has 
not already done so, Suzanne E. Kitto 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. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See SCR 
22.28(2). 
No. 
2017AP1887-D   
 
 
 
1