Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mary K. Biester
Citation: 2013 WI 85
Docket Number: 2012AP000385-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 22, 2013

2013 WI 85 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP385-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mary K. Biester, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Mary K. Biester, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BIESTER     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 22, 2013   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
2013 WI 85
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP385-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mary K. Biester, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Mary K. Biester, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 22, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report filed by the 
referee, Dennis J. Flynn, recommending the court suspend 
Attorney Mary K. Biester's license to practice law in Wisconsin 
for one year for 30 counts of professional misconduct.  No 
appeal has been filed so we review the referee's report and 
No. 
2012AP385-D   
 
2 
 
recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  Upon careful review of 
the matter, we adopt the referee's findings of fact and 
conclusions 
of 
law. 
 
We 
agree 
that 
Attorney 
Biester's 
professional misconduct warrants a one-year suspension of her 
license to practice law.  We also find it appropriate to order 
her to make restitution and to successfully complete 20 hours of 
continuing legal education (CLE) ethics courses.  We further 
find it appropriate to require her to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding, which were $25,584.50 as of April 1, 2013.   
¶2 
Attorney Biester was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1979 and practices in Beloit.  She has no prior 
disciplinary history. 
¶3 
On February 23, 2012, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney Biester alleging 16 
counts of misconduct.  An amended complaint alleging 31 counts 
of misconduct was filed on August 15, 2012.  Attorney Biester 
filed an answer to the amended complaint on September 18, 2012.  
On December 18, 2012, the referee granted Attorney Biester's 
motion for a stay of proceedings as to Count Two of the amended 
complaint.   
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states as follows: 
 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2012AP385-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
The final hearing in this matter took place on 
February 18, 2013.  At that time, the parties presented the 
referee with a written stipulation and no contest plea agreement 
whereby Attorney Biester withdrew her answer to the amended 
complaint and pled no contest to Counts One and Three through 
Thirty-One of the OLR's amended complaint.  Attorney Biester 
agreed that the referee could use the allegations of the amended 
complaint as an adequate factual basis in the record for a 
determination of misconduct as to those counts.  The parties 
jointly recommended the referee determine that an appropriate 
sanction would be a one-year suspension of Attorney Biester's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  The parties agreed that 
if the referee's order staying proceedings relating to Count Two 
of the amended complaint was no longer in effect, the OLR was 
free to continue the prosecution of Count Two and seek an 
appropriate sanction and restitution.  The parties also agreed 
that any additional sanction relating to Count Two should run 
consecutive to any sanctions imposed as a result of the 
stipulation and should commence on the day following the last 
day of the sanction imposed in the instant matter. 
¶5 
The referee concluded that the OLR had met its burden 
of proof on the 30 counts to which Attorney Biester pled no 
contest.  The referee agreed that a one-year suspension was an 
appropriate sanction.  The referee also recommended that 
Attorney Biester make restitution in the amount of $900 to one 
client, that she be ordered to successfully complete 20 hours of 
CLE ethics courses, and that she pay the full costs of this 
No. 
2012AP385-D   
 
4 
 
proceeding.  Rather than detail the extensive allegations and 
findings in this matter, we will instead briefly summarize the 
six client matters that gave rise to Attorney Biester's 
misconduct. 
Matter of L.T. (Counts One and Three through Seven) 
¶6 
L.T. hired Attorney Biester to represent her in a 
divorce case in the summer of 2008.  Attorney Biester's 
nonlawyer assistant, J.M., had L.T. write a $3,500 check to J.M. 
for attorney fees.  J.M. cashed the check without depositing it 
in Attorney Biester's trust account.   
¶7 
Attorney Biester was experiencing financial problems.  
She filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding and her home was the 
subject of a foreclosure action.  L.T. inherited a large sum of 
money.  Attorney Biester advised L.T. she should protect those 
funds from her husband.  In February 2009 J.M. convinced L.T. to 
transfer $78,000 of her inherited funds into Attorney Biester's 
client trust account for safekeeping.  Attorney Biester wire-
transferred over $70,000 from her client trust account to the 
bank that held the first mortgage on Attorney Biester's home.  
Attorney Biester never notified L.T. of the receipt of L.T.'s 
funds, nor did she deliver any of those funds to L.T. or provide 
L.T. with a full accounting.  The OLR's investigative audit of 
Attorney Biester's trust account showed numerous trust account 
violations. 
Matter of L.R. (Counts Eight through Eleven) 
¶8 
In July of 2009, L.R. hired Attorney Biester to 
represent her in a divorce case.  During the pendency of the 
No. 
2012AP385-D   
 
5 
 
matter 
$3,886 
was 
forwarded 
to 
Attorney 
Biester, 
which 
represented L.R.'s half of a tax refund.  Although L.R. 
repeatedly contacted Attorney Biester in the fall of 2009 about 
the status of the case, Attorney Biester never responded.  L.R. 
then decided to represent herself and asked Attorney Biester to 
return the case file and the $3,886.  In October 2009 Attorney 
Biester informed L.R. that police had seized L.R.'s divorce file 
since it was part of an investigation by the OLR into the 
actions of an employee at Attorney Biester's law firm. 
Matter of J.F. (Counts Twelve through Sixteen) 
¶9 
J.F. retained Attorney Biester to represent her in a 
bankruptcy matter in July 2010.  J.F. paid a $750 retainer.  
There was no written retainer agreement and no receipt was given 
to J.F.  Attorney Biester requested additional money to handle 
the matter, and J.F. paid another $150.  Attorney Biester never 
deposited the funds into any client account, and no funds were 
set aside to pay the bankruptcy filing fee.  Attorney Biester 
filed a chapter 7 voluntary bankruptcy petition on behalf of 
J.F. in December 2010 and filed a request for a waiver of the 
filing fee.  The waiver of filing fees was denied but options 
were given for installment payments.  Attorney Biester never 
informed J.F. about the bankruptcy court's fee waiver decision.  
The filing fee was never paid, and in April 2011 the bankruptcy 
court entered an order dismissing the petition for failure to 
pay the filing fee.  Attorney Biester never informed J.F. about 
the dismissal. 
Matter of J.H. and D.H. (Counts Seventeen through Twenty-Four) 
No. 
2012AP385-D   
 
6 
 
¶10 In April 2007 J.H. and D.H. retained Attorney Biester 
to represent them in a potential medical malpractice claim.  A 
contingent retainer agreement was signed calling for Attorney 
Biester to receive one-third of any amount recovered.  In 
addition, J.H. and D.H. paid $1,500 for anticipated costs.  The 
$1,500 check was deposited into Attorney Biester's client trust 
account. 
¶11 J.H. 
and 
D.H. 
made 
multiple 
trips 
to 
Attorney 
Biester's office to discuss the case, but Attorney Biester was 
never there.  Attorney Biester failed to file any malpractice 
lawsuit or otherwise advance the claim before the expiration of 
the statute of limitations.   
¶12 J.M. was authorized as Attorney Biester's nonlawyer 
assistant to perform client services to J.H. and D.H.  Attorney 
Biester failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.M. 
was compatible with Attorney Biester's professional obligations.  
J.M. took client files and paperwork to her home or other 
locations and failed to return them to Attorney Biester's law 
office. 
 
J.H. 
and 
D.H. 
eventually 
terminated 
their 
representation by Attorney Biester and requested the return of 
their case file materials.  Attorney Biester failed to comply.   
Matter of J.M. (Counts Twenty-Five through Thirty) 
¶13 J.M., Attorney Biester's nonlawyer assistant, hired 
Attorney Biester in early July 2007 relating to a financial 
matter regarding a loan on a pickup truck with J.S.  J.M. and 
J.S. signed an agreement whereby J.S. would pay J.M. $7,900 for 
a pickup truck, and J.M. agreed to accept the $7,900 as full and 
No. 
2012AP385-D   
 
7 
 
final payment for the truck.  J.M. also agreed to release the 
title to the truck.  J.S.'s sister loaned him the $7,900.  That 
sum was wire-deposited to Attorney Biester's client trust 
account.  Attorney Biester did not notify J.M. of her receipt of 
the money.  The OLR's audit of Attorney Biester's client trust 
account revealed that Attorney Biester used the funds belonging 
to J.M. by making disbursements to herself for $5,400 and paying 
$400 in office rent.  During the course of the representation, 
J.M. was associated with the Biester Law Office and engaged in 
conduct that was incompatible with the professional obligations 
of 
Attorney 
Biester, 
including 
having 
Attorney 
Biester's 
business and client trust account checkbooks at her home.  The 
checkbooks were seized by police in the execution of a search 
warrant of J.M.'s home.   
Matter of M.W. (Count Thirty-One) 
¶14 M.W. hired Attorney Biester to represent her in 
custody and paternity matters.  She tried without success to 
contact Attorney Biester regarding the status of her case.  M.W. 
verbally filed a grievance with the OLR.  The OLR sent Attorney 
Biester several letters but Attorney Biester did not respond.  
Attorney Biester did finally respond after this court issued an 
order to show cause why her license should not be temporarily 
suspended for failing to cooperate in the investigation.  
¶15 The referee concluded that Attorney Biester committed 
the misconduct alleged in Counts One and Three through Thirty-
One of the amended complaint.  That misconduct consisted of:  
No. 
2012AP385-D   
 
8 
 
One violation of SCR 20:1.2(a);2 three violations of SCR 20:1.3;3 
one 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:1.4(a)(2);4 
three 
violations 
of 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3);5 
two 
violations 
of 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(4);6 
one 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(b);7 one violation of SCR 20:1.6;8 four 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.2(a) states as follows: 
 
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. 
3 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) states a lawyer shall "reasonably consult 
with the client about the means by which the client's objectives 
are to be accomplished; . . . ." 
5 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) states a lawyer shall "keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter; . . . ." 
6 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides that a lawyer shall "promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
by 
the 
client 
for 
information; . . . ." 
7 SCR 20:1.4(b) states as follows: "A lawyer shall explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding the representation." 
8 SCR 20:1.6 states, in pertinent part:  "(a) A lawyer shall 
not reveal information relating to the representation of a 
client unless the client gives informed consent, except for 
disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out 
the representation, and except as stated in pars. (b) and (c)." 
No. 
2012AP385-D   
 
9 
 
violations 
of 
SCR 
20:1.15(b)(1);9 
two 
violations 
of 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4);10 one violation of SCRs 20:1.15(d)(1) and 
(2);11 three violations of SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)e.;12 two violations 
                                                 
9 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) states:  
 
Separate account.  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. 
10 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) states:  
 
Unearned fees and cost advances.  Except as 
provided in par. (4m), unearned fees and advanced 
payments of fees shall be held in trust until earned 
by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to sub. (g).  
Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for payment of 
costs shall be held in trust until the costs are 
incurred. 
11 SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) and (2) state: 
 
(1) Notice and disbursement.  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) Accounting.  Upon final distribution of any 
trust property or upon request by the client or a 3rd 
party having an ownership interest in the property, 
the lawyer shall promptly render a full written 
accounting regarding the property. 
12 SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)e. states: 
No. 
2012AP385-D   
 
10 
 
of SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a.;13 one violation of SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c.;14 
one 
violation 
of 
SCR 20:1.16(d);15 
one 
violation 
of 
SCR 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(1) Draft accounts.  Complete records of a trust 
account that is a draft account shall include a 
transaction register; individual client ledgers for 
IOLTA accounts and other pooled trust accounts; a 
ledger for account fees and charges, if law firm funds 
are held in the account pursuant to sub. (b)(3); 
deposit 
records; 
disbursement 
records; 
monthly 
statements; and reconciliation reports, subject to all 
of the following:  . . .  
 
e. Disbursement records. 
 
1. Checks.  Checks shall be pre-printed and pre-
numbered.  The name and address of the lawyer or law 
firm, and the name of the account shall be printed in 
the upper left corner of the check.  Trust account 
checks shall include the words "Client Account," or 
"Trust Account," or words of similar import in the 
account name.  Each check disbursed from the trust 
account shall identify the client matter and the 
reason for the disbursement on the memo line. 
 
2. Canceled checks.  Canceled checks shall be 
obtained from the financial institution.  Imaged 
checks may be substituted for canceled checks. 
 
3. Imaged 
checks. 
 
Imaged 
checks 
shall 
be 
acceptable if they provide both the front and reverse 
of the check and comply with the requirements of this 
paragraph.  The information contained on the reverse 
side 
of 
the 
imaged 
checks 
shall 
include 
any 
endorsement signatures or stamps, account numbers, and 
transaction dates that appear on the original.  Imaged 
checks shall be of sufficient size to be readable 
without magnification and as close as possible to the 
size of the original check. 
13 SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a. provides:  Operational requirements 
for trust accounts. 
 
(4) Prohibited transactions. 
No. 
2012AP385-D   
 
11 
 
20:3.4(c);16 four violations of SCR 20:5.3(b);17 five violations 
of SCR 20:8.4(c);18 one violation of SCR 22.03(2),19 enforced via 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
a. Cash.  No disbursement of cash shall be made 
from a trust account or from a deposit to a trust 
account, and no check shall be made payable to "Cash." 
14 SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c. states:  Operational requirements for 
trust accounts. 
 
(4) Prohibited transactions.  . . .  
 
c. Internet transactions.  A lawyer shall not 
make deposits to or disbursements from a trust account 
by way of an Internet transaction. 
15 SCR 20:1.16(d) states: 
 
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred.  The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
16 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides that a lawyer shall not "knowingly 
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for 
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 
exists; . . . ." 
17 SCR 20:5.3(b) states as follows:  "With respect to a 
nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer: 
 . . . (b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the 
nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the 
person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations 
of the lawyer; . . . ." 
18 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides it is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
19 SCR 22.03(2) states as follows: 
No. 
2012AP385-D   
 
12 
 
SCR 20:8.4(h);20 and five violations of SCR 22.03(6),21 enforced 
via SCR 20:8.4(h).  
¶16 In discussing the appropriate sanction, the referee 
noted that Attorney Biester engaged in multiple acts of 
misconduct that occurred over a period of years.  She did not 
initially cooperate with the OLR during its investigations.  The 
referee said the misuse of client funds became a pattern, and 
court orders were not followed.  The referee also noted each of 
the six client matters detailed in the OLR's amended complaint 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
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 a 
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. 
20 SCR 20:8.4(h) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a grievance 
filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required by 
SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or 
SCR 22.04(1); . . . ." 
21 SCR 22.03(6) provides: 
 
In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, 
the 
respondent's 
wilful 
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. 
2012AP385-D   
 
13 
 
evidences harm to the client and injury to the integrity of the 
legal system in Wisconsin. 
¶17 As mitigating factors, the referee said Attorney 
Biester appears to demonstrate genuine remorse.  She has no 
prior misconduct adjudications over a practice career of almost 
34 years.  The referee said Attorney Biester is taking 
responsibility for her actions.  The referee noted that during 
the period of her misconduct Attorney Biester suffered from 
serious 
physical 
and 
psychological 
issues, 
and 
suffered 
financial hardship and went through a personal bankruptcy 
proceeding.  The referee said Attorney Biester has expressed 
concern for the victims of her misconduct, and he noted she has 
participated in outpatient treatment for her psychological 
issues. 
¶18 The referee said suspension of an attorney's license 
to practice law for any period of time is a very serious 
consequence and also acts as a deterrent to others who practice 
law in this state.  The referee concluded that an appropriate 
sanction for Attorney Biester's misconduct was a one-year 
suspension of her license to practice law in Wisconsin.  The 
referee also concluded that restitution in the amount of $900 
should be paid to J.F.  The referee also recommended that 
Attorney Biester be required to successfully complete 20 hours 
of CLE ethics courses approved in advance by the OLR and 
minimally addressing issues related to office management, trust 
account maintenance, responsibility to clients, and compliance 
No. 
2012AP385-D   
 
14 
 
with court orders.  The referee also recommended that Attorney 
Biester be ordered to pay the full costs of the proceeding.  
¶19 The referee added that, if in the future, the stay as 
to Count Two of the amended complaint is lifted and that matter 
is prosecuted, that matter would stand on its own and the OLR 
and Attorney Biester should not be prejudiced by the decision 
made in the instant case.  The referee said if Attorney Biester 
is subsequently found to have committed the misconduct alleged 
in Count Two of the amended complaint and sanctions are imposed, 
those sanctions should run consecutive to the sanctions imposed 
in this case.   
¶20 This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tully, 
2005 WI 100, ¶25, 283 Wis. 2d 124, 699 N.W.2d 882.  This court 
is free to impose whatever discipline it deems appropriate, 
regardless of the referee's recommendation.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686.   
¶21 We adopt the referee's findings of fact because they 
have not been shown to be clearly erroneous, and we also agree 
with the referee's conclusions of law.  As to the appropriate 
level of discipline, although at first blush a one-year 
suspension may seem to be on the light side for an attorney who 
has stipulated to 30 counts of professional misconduct, after 
careful consideration of all of the circumstances of this case, 
No. 
2012AP385-D   
 
15 
 
we conclude that a one-year suspension of Attorney Biester's 
license to practice law is an appropriate sanction. 
¶22 In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Raneda, 2012 
WI 42, 340 Wis. 2d 273, 811 N.W.2d 412, an attorney who was 
found to have engaged in 14 counts of professional misconduct 
received a one-year suspension.  The misconduct included failing 
to hold disputed funds in trust, distributing trust funds to 
himself without promptly providing a full written accounting to 
the person who had ownership of the property, failing to keep 
his clients reasonably informed about the status of their 
matters, and failing to cooperate with the OLR.  The attorney 
had been practicing law for nine years and had no prior 
disciplinary history. 
¶23 In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 
2009 WI 40, 317 Wis. 2d 215, 765 N.W.2d 788, an attorney who 
stipulated to having engaged in six counts of professional 
misconduct also received a one-year suspension.  The misconduct 
included collecting a fee without performing any work, failing 
to promptly disburse client funds and provide a full accounting 
upon request, and failing to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client.  The attorney had been 
practicing law for 29 years and had been disciplined for 
professional misconduct on four prior occasions, including three 
prior 
suspensions. 
 
The 
attorney's 
first 
contact 
with 
Wisconsin's lawyer disciplinary system, which occurred in 1990 
when he had been practicing law for 10 years, resulted in his 
receiving a one-year suspension for 27 separate rule violations. 
No. 
2012AP385-D   
 
16 
 
¶24 Since no two cases are precisely analogous, there is 
no "standard" sanction for particular misconduct.  Nevertheless, 
the sanctions imposed in prior cases are instructive in 
fashioning an appropriate remedy for the case at hand.  Attorney 
Biester has admitted to more counts of misconduct than were at 
issue in Raneda or the 2009 Mandelman matter.  (Attorney 
Mandelman's 1990 case, which also resulted in a one-year 
suspension, involved roughly the same number of counts as does 
the instant case.)  As the referee noted, Attorney Biester 
practiced 
law 
uneventfully 
for 
nearly 
34 
years. 
 
Her 
professional misconduct occurred during a period where she was 
experiencing serious personal hardships.  She has accepted 
responsibility for her actions and has expressed concern for the 
victims of her misconduct.  Upon consideration of all of the 
facts of this case, we agree with the referee that a one-year 
suspension of Attorney Biester's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction. 
¶25 Because 
the 
case 
presents 
no 
extraordinary 
circumstances, we further conclude that Attorney Biester should 
be required to pay the full costs of this matter.  See 
SCR 22.24(1m) (supreme court's general policy upon a finding of 
misconduct is to impose all costs upon the respondent attorney).  
We also agree with the referee's recommendation that Attorney 
Biester should be required to complete CLE ethics courses 
preapproved by the OLR, and we concur with the referee's 
recommendation about future prosecution of Count Two of the 
amended complaint, should the existing stay be lifted. 
No. 
2012AP385-D   
 
17 
 
¶26 Turning to the issue of restitution, the parties 
stated in their stipulation, and the referee agreed, that 
restitution in the amount of $900 should be ordered paid to 
J.F., unless Attorney Biester can demonstrate that that amount 
has already been paid.  The parties' stipulation points out that 
in the event the stay of all proceedings relating to Count Two 
is lifted, the OLR may continue the prosecution of Count Two and 
seek appropriate sanctions and restitution relating thereto.  
The record indicates that the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection (the Fund) has paid $78,000 to L.T.  In the event the 
stay of proceedings relating to Count Two of the amended 
complaint is lifted, the OLR will apparently be seeking an order 
requiring Attorney Biester to reimburse the Fund.  Since a stay 
of all proceedings relating to Count Two currently remains in 
effect, the issue of restitution to the Fund is not before us at 
this time.   
¶27 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Mary K. Biester to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, 
effective November 25, 2013. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mary K. Biester shall pay 
restitution in the amount of $900 to her former client, J.F., 
within 60 days of the date of this order, or provide 
documentation 
to 
the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
that 
restitution has already been made. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of her 
reinstatement, Mary K. Biester shall successfully complete 20 
hours of continuing legal education ethics courses approved in 
No. 
2012AP385-D   
 
18 
 
advance by the Office of Lawyer Regulation.  The courses should 
address issues related to office management, trust account 
maintenance, responsibility to clients, and compliance with 
court orders.   
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Mary K. Biester shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $25,584.50 as 
of April 1, 2013. 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution is to be 
completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation.  
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mary K. Biester 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. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if in the future, the stay 
of all proceedings relating to Count Two of the amended 
complaint is lifted and there is an additional finding of 
misconduct as to Count Two, any sanction imposed as a result of 
that misconduct shall run consecutive to the one-year suspension 
imposed by the terms of this order.  
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c).