Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Katharine L. Taber
Citation: 2012 WI 9
Docket Number: 2011AP002263-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 9, 2012

2012 WI 9 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP2263-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Katharine L. Taber, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Katharine L. Taber, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TABER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 9, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 9
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP2263-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Katharine L. Taber, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Katharine L. Taber, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 9, 2012 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   In this reciprocal discipline matter, we 
consider whether the license of Attorney Katharine L. Taber to 
practice law in Wisconsin should be suspended for a period of 
one year, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the 
Supreme Court of Arizona.  Having received no response to the 
court's order to show cause, we conclude that reciprocal 
discipline should be imposed.  We therefore suspend the license 
of Attorney Taber for a period of one year, order her to comply 
No. 
2011AP2263-D   
 
2 
 
with the terms of her probation imposed by the Supreme Court of 
Arizona, and direct her to pay the "restitution" as required by 
the Supreme Court of Arizona.  Because this matter has been 
resolved without the appointment of a referee, we do not impose 
the costs of this proceeding on Attorney Taber. 
¶2 
On September 28, 2011, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) initiated this proceeding against Attorney Taber by filing 
a complaint and an order to answer.  The OLR also moved this 
court to issue an order directing Attorney Taber to show cause 
why the imposition of reciprocal discipline under SCR 22.221 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 states, in pertinent part, as follows:   
(3)  The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
(a)  The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process. 
(b)  There 
was 
such 
an 
infirmity 
of 
proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity. 
(c)  The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
(4)  Except as provided in sub. (3), a final 
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney 
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity 
shall 
be 
conclusive 
evidence 
of 
the 
attorney's 
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a 
proceeding under this rule. 
(5)  The supreme court may refer a complaint 
filed under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a 
report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16.  At 
No. 
2011AP2263-D   
 
3 
 
would be unwarranted.  On October 13, 2011, the court issued 
such an order to show cause and directed Attorney Taber to file 
her response identifying any ground set forth in SCR 22.22(3) by 
November 2, 2011.  
¶3 
The court was subsequently informed that Attorney 
Taber was not personally served with the complaint and order to 
answer until November 4, 2011.  Consequently, a second order to 
show cause was issued directing Attorney Taber to file her 
response by December 5, 2011.  No response from Attorney Taber 
has ever been filed.  Consequently, the court considers this 
matter based upon the OLR's complaint and the attached documents 
from the disciplinary proceeding in Arizona. 
¶4 
Attorney Taber was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in September 1991.  Her Wisconsin license is currently 
administratively suspended for failure to comply with mandatory 
continuing legal education (CLE) reporting requirements and for 
failure to pay bar dues and assessments.   
¶5 
Attorney Taber was admitted to the practice of law in 
Arizona in October 1992.  She most recently practiced law in 
that state under the name Katharine L. Roberts.  The Supreme 
Court of Arizona placed Attorney Taber on "Interim Suspension" 
on July 21, 2010. 
                                                                                                                                                             
the hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the 
imposition 
of 
discipline 
or 
license 
suspension 
different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction 
to demonstrate 
that the imposition of identical 
discipline or license suspension by the supreme court 
is unwarranted.  
No. 
2011AP2263-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
The 
allegations 
of 
misconduct 
in 
the 
Arizona 
disciplinary proceeding involved three separate representations 
and an unrelated series of acts constituting the unauthorized 
practice of law while her license was suspended.  Attorney Taber 
ultimately entered into an agreement in which she admitted many 
of 
the 
misconduct 
allegations 
and 
agreed 
to 
a 
one-year 
suspension of her license to practice law in Arizona.  Her 
admissions formed the basis for the factual findings and legal 
conclusions set forth in the Arizona hearing officer's report, 
which were subsequently accepted by the Arizona Disciplinary 
Commission and the Supreme Court of Arizona. 
¶7 
In the first matter, Attorney Taber represented a 
husband in a child custody and divorce matter.  The hearing 
officer found that Attorney Taber's misconduct in this matter 
had included failing to act diligently in representing her 
client, failing to expedite the litigation, knowingly disobeying 
an obligation under the rules of the tribunal, engaging in 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and 
knowingly violating a rule or order of the court.  In one 
instance, Attorney Taber requested a five-minute recess during a 
bench trial so that she could purportedly retrieve some files 
from her car.  When the court reconvened, the client was present 
but Attorney Taber had disappeared.  Law enforcement located 
Attorney Taber the next day at her home, but she never contacted 
the court or opposing counsel to provide an explanation of what 
had happened or why she had disappeared.  Attorney Taber stated 
that she did not do so because it was a very personal and 
No. 
2011AP2263-D   
 
5 
 
embarrassing family matter.  In this matter, the court imposed 
two separate judgments for fees and costs against Attorney 
Taber, one in the amount of $3,838.70 and a second one in the 
amount of $5,012.  Attorney Taber did not pay these amounts by 
the required deadlines and did not move to vacate the judgments. 
¶8 
In the second matter, Attorney Taber represented a 
criminal defendant in an appeal.  On multiple occasions, 
Attorney Taber failed either to file an opening appellate brief 
or to request an extension of time by the due date, which was 
nonetheless subsequently extended by the appellate court.  
Because of her failure to file the brief in a timely manner, 
Attorney Taber was obligated to appear at a show cause hearing.  
Attorney Taber did not appear.  Based on statements made by 
Attorney Taber to her assistant, the assistant told court staff 
that Attorney Taber did not think she had to appear because she 
had mailed the brief a week before the show cause hearing.  This 
was a false statement.  Attorney Taber asserted she was unaware 
that her assistant had made these statements to court staff 
until a later time, but she did not correct the inaccuracy.  The 
appellate court ultimately fined Attorney Taber $1,050 as a 
sanction for the late filing of the brief.  The hearing officer 
concluded 
that 
Attorney 
Taber 
had 
committed 
professional 
misconduct 
in 
this 
matter 
consisting 
of 
failing 
to 
act 
diligently in representing her client, failing to comply 
promptly with reasonable requests for information, failing to 
expedite the litigation, making a false statement of fact or 
failing to correct a false statement of fact previously made to 
No. 
2011AP2263-D   
 
6 
 
a tribunal, knowingly disobeying an obligation of the tribunal, 
violating or attempting to violate the Arizona Rules of 
Professional Conduct through the acts of another, engaging in 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and 
knowingly violating a rule or order of the court. 
¶9 
The 
third 
matter 
involved 
Attorney 
Taber's 
representation of a defendant before a trial court.  Attorney 
Taber failed to appear for a scheduled jury trial, forcing the 
court to discharge the jury panel that had been assembled.  A 
half hour after the scheduled start time, Attorney Taber's 
assistant notified the court that Attorney Taber had fallen at 
home, was at an urgent care medical facility, and would not be 
able to appear for the trial.  The trial court issued an order 
directing Attorney Taber to show cause why she should not be 
held in contempt for failing to appear for trial.  The trial 
court stated on the record that there had been prior instances 
where proceedings in the case had been interrupted due to 
Attorney Taber's conduct.  Attorney Taber testified at the 
contempt hearing that she had fallen in her home on the day of 
the trial, but had not sought medical attention.  The trial 
court ultimately found that Attorney Taber had willfully failed 
to properly notify the court of her alleged inability to proceed 
with the jury trial and imposed a $300 fine.  Attorney Taber did 
not pay the fine by the required date, but did pay it at a later 
time.  The hearing officer concluded that in this matter 
Attorney Taber had knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the 
rules of the tribunal, had engaged in conduct prejudicial to the 
No. 
2011AP2263-D   
 
7 
 
administration of justice, and had knowingly violated a rule or 
order of the court. 
¶10 The final set of misconduct findings related to 
Attorney Taber's engaging in the practice of law after her 
Arizona license had been suspended due to the nonpayment of 
dues.  Attorney Taber was notified in March 2009 that her name 
was going to be presented to the Arizona Board of Governors for 
suspension because of the failure to pay dues.  Attorney Taber 
subsequently discussed with representatives of the Arizona State 
Bar that her license had been suspended.  On at least three 
occasions involving three separate clients, however, Attorney 
Taber engaged in the practice of law while her license was 
suspended.  The hearing officer concluded that Attorney Taber 
had committed professional misconduct by engaging in the 
unauthorized practice of law and engaging in conduct prejudicial 
to the administration of justice. 
¶11 The Arizona hearing officer recommended the one-year 
suspension, retroactive to the date of Attorney Taber's interim 
suspension, that was jointly requested by the parties.  In 
discussing various aggravating and mitigating factors, the 
hearing officer found that Attorney Taber had endured a number 
of traumatic events over a short period of time, which had 
drastically changed every aspect of her life and had impaired 
her ability to maintain her law practice. 
¶12 The hearing officer's findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and sanction recommendations were accepted by the Arizona 
Disciplinary Commission and the Supreme Court of Arizona.  The 
No. 
2011AP2263-D   
 
8 
 
Arizona Supreme Court suspended Attorney Taber's license to 
practice law in Arizona for a period of one year, retroactive to 
July 21, 2010, when she had been placed on Interim Suspension.  
It also placed Attorney Taber on probation with a number of 
terms and conditions for a period of two years after her 
reinstatement.  It further required as "restitution" that by a 
specified date Attorney Taber had to either pay the two cost 
judgments imposed in the first matter discussed above or reach a 
payment agreement, unless she was able to have those judgments 
vacated in the interim. 
¶13 As noted above, Attorney Taber has not alleged to this 
court that any of the reasons set forth in SCR 22.22(3) are 
present 
in 
this 
matter 
and 
require 
the 
imposition 
of 
substantially different discipline.  We also conclude that none 
of the three grounds set forth in SCR 22.22(3) are present here.  
We therefore impose the identical one-year period of suspension 
imposed by the Supreme Court of Arizona, although we do not make 
it retroactive since Attorney Taber's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin was not previously temporarily suspended in connection 
with this matter, as her Arizona license had been.2  We further 
require Attorney Taber to comply with the probation and 
restitution obligations imposed by the Supreme Court of Arizona.  
                                                 
2 We note that a one-year suspension will require Attorney 
Taber to undergo the formal reinstatement procedure set forth in 
SCRs 22.29 through 22.33.  In addition, Attorney Taber will also 
separately have to seek reinstatement from the administrative 
suspensions for failure to comply with mandatory CLE reporting 
requirements and for failure to pay bar dues and assessments. 
No. 
2011AP2263-D   
 
9 
 
Finally, because it has not been necessary to appoint a referee 
in this state, we do not impose the costs of this proceeding on 
Attorney Taber. 
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Katharine L. Taber 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one 
year, effective the date of this order. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Katharine L. Taber shall 
comply with all of the probation and restitution obligations 
imposed in the June 15, 2011, Judgment and Order of the Supreme 
Court of Arizona. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Katharine L. Taber 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. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed 
against Katharine L. Taber. 
 
No. 
2011AP2263-D   
 
 
 
1