Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Linda C. Smith
Citation: 2008 WI 17
Docket Number: 2006AP002112-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: March 21, 2008

2008 WI 17 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP2112-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Linda C. Smith, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Linda C. Smith, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SMITH 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 21, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 17
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP2112-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Linda C. Smith, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Linda C. Smith, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 21, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee Stanley F. Hack's 
recommendation that we suspend Attorney Linda C. Smith's license 
to practice law for a period of two years for professional 
misconduct. This matter involves 17 allegations of misconduct 
allegedly committed in connection with a failed business 
transaction.  Neither the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) nor 
Attorney 
Smith 
has 
appealed the referee's recommendation.  
No. 
2006AP2112-D   
 
2 
 
Therefore, the matter is submitted to the court for review 
pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1    
¶2 
In conducting our review we will affirm the referee's 
findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 
562 N.W.2d 137 (1997).  We review the referee's conclusions of 
law de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.  In 
accordance with our authority to supervise the practice of law 
in this state, we determine the level of discipline that is 
appropriate under the particular circumstances, independent of 
the referee's recommendation, but benefiting from it.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶3 
After independent review of the record, we adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Further, we 
agree with the referee's recommendation that Attorney Smith's 
license to practice law in this state be suspended for a period 
of two years.  We also conclude that Attorney Smith should pay 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  Review; appeal. 
 
(2) 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. 
2006AP2112-D   
 
3 
 
restitution in one matter as set forth herein and should pay the 
full costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶4 
Attorney Smith was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1998.  She was administratively suspended on 
November 1, 2004, for failure to pay state bar dues.  She was 
administratively suspended for failure to complete mandatory 
continuing legal education (CLE) requirements on June 6, 2005.  
Both suspensions remain in effect.   
¶5 
The alleged misconduct in this matter derives from two 
grievances that were filed by three individuals who were all 
involved with Attorney Smith in a failed business venture to 
purchase and operate a restaurant.  The first grievance was 
filed jointly by Dawn Schmidt (Schmidt) and Rose Bryan (Bryan).  
The second grievance was filed by Sandra Connell (Connell).   
¶6 
On August 30, 2006, the OLR filed a 17-count complaint 
against Attorney Smith.  Attorney Smith was served with the 
complaint at her then-current address in North Carolina.  She 
filed an answer, but has not participated further in this 
disciplinary proceeding.  Eventually, a default judgment was 
granted, and the referee's report and recommendation was filed 
May 9, 2007.  No appeal was filed. 
¶7 
The record before us reflects that Schmidt met 
Attorney 
Smith 
in 
2000, 
when 
Attorney 
Smith 
moved 
to 
Neillsville, Wisconsin, to practice law.  Schmidt became 
Attorney Smith's office assistant in December 2000.  In the fall 
of 2001 Attorney Smith proposed to Schmidt that they purchase 
and operate a restaurant together called the Moonlite Supper 
No. 
2006AP2112-D   
 
4 
 
Club.  They formed a limited liability company (LLC) called 
Peridot Ventures, LLC, to undertake this business venture.  
Attorney Smith was one of the LLC members and served as attorney 
and accountant for the LLC.  It is undisputed that she completed 
all the paperwork to create this entity. 
¶8 
On October 22, 2001, Attorney Smith and Schmidt made 
an offer to purchase Moonlite in their individual names.  
Connell (the other grievant) represented the sellers.  The 
realtor was Terry Wulff (Wulff).  Counteroffers and amended 
offers were made in the name of the LLC.  The LLC was unable to 
obtain conventional financing, so the parties negotiated a land 
contract.  Attorney Smith drafted and signed the amended offer 
setting forth 
these terms.  The offer was accepted on 
January 21, 2002.  Attorney Smith handled all the negotiations 
and drafted the land contract and closing statement for the 
deal, which closed on February 13, 2002.   
¶9 
The referee found that Schmidt had no money to invest 
in the LLC venture, and that it was Schmidt's understanding that 
Attorney Smith would advance the initial capital.  Schmidt 
explained that she would work in the restaurant and that 
Attorney Smith would do everything else. 
¶10 Attorney Smith and Schmidt ran the restaurant jointly 
for about a month, from February 14, 2002, until March 2002.  In 
March 2002 Attorney Smith informed Schmidt that Attorney Smith 
needed to withdraw from the LLC.  Attorney Smith told Schmidt 
that she would need to pay Attorney Smith $5,060 to compensate 
her for the money Attorney Smith had invested in the business.  
No. 
2006AP2112-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney Smith told Schmidt that a judge was pressuring her to 
close some estates, and Attorney Smith needed the money so it 
could be put back in her trust account to close the estates.  
¶11 Schmidt stated that she did not believe she had any 
choice but to buy Attorney Smith out.  Accordingly, Schmidt 
borrowed $5,060 from her aunt and agreed to allow Attorney Smith 
to withdraw from the LLC.   
¶12 After the buy out, Schmidt hired a certified public 
accountant to audit the financial condition of the restaurant.  
Schmidt was informed that Moonlite's business checking account 
had a negative balance of $13.56, that there was a total of 
$21,093.49 in cash not accounted for, and $3,777.51 in accounts 
payable due to vendors, as well as unpaid taxes, unpaid wages 
and $3,468.12 due to Connell for inventory.  Schmidt ran the 
restaurant until August 2002 when she closed it due to 
insolvency.  
¶13 Attorney Smith closed her Neillsville law office in 
December 2003 and left Neillsville the next month.   
¶14 As noted, the complaint filed by the OLR contained 
numerous allegations of misconduct related to a variety of 
questionable business transactions involving Attorney Smith.  
These incidents will be discussed seriatim. 
Improper Administration of Estate. 
¶15 The referee found that Attorney Smith engaged in 
improper transactions in connection with an estate she was 
administrating in Clark County circuit court, In the Estate of 
William M. Jones, No. 2001PR73.  The decedent, Mr. Jones, had no 
No. 
2006AP2112-D   
 
6 
 
known heirs and his estate had minimal assets.  In November 2001 
Mid-Wisconsin Bank filed a claim against the Jones estate 
because of a lien they held on a truck Mr. Jones had owned.  On 
February 6, 2002, Attorney Smith wrote trust account check 
number 1137 in the amount of $1,475 to Mid-Wisconsin Bank to 
satisfy the bank's claim against the Jones estate.  However, 
when she wrote this check, no funds from the Jones estate were 
on deposit in Attorney Smith's trust account.  She later 
explained that she did not want the estate to lose the vehicle 
and that is why she satisfied the lien.   
¶16 She apparently then told Bryan, Schmidt's mother, that 
she had purchased a truck for snowplowing (presumably for the 
restaurant), and asked Bryan to put the title for the truck in 
Bryan's name.  Bryan refused.  Attorney Smith eventually induced 
Schmidt to pay her $1,475 for the truck as part of the buy out 
of Attorney Smith's interest in the LLC. 
Failure to Pay Real Estate Commission.   
¶17 The OLR alleged and the referee found that Attorney 
Smith breached an agreement to pay a real estate commission of 
$8,400 in connection with the restaurant purchase.  Attorney 
Smith first asked Wulff, the real estate agent, if he would 
allow the LLC to delay paying his commission until the balloon 
payment on the land contract came due in one year.  At that 
time, Wulff had a legal retainer agreement with Attorney Smith 
for his real estate business——she was representing some of his 
clients in other ongoing real estate matters.  Nonetheless, 
No. 
2006AP2112-D   
 
7 
 
Attorney Smith neither reduced this payment agreement to writing 
nor obtained a written conflict waiver from Wulff.   
Failure to Pay for Inventory.   
¶18 The OLR's complaint alleged further that Attorney 
Smith 
apparently 
agreed 
to 
pay 
Connell, 
the 
seller's 
representative, for the consumable inventory remaining at the 
restaurant at the time of purchase.  However, the land contract 
closing statement, drafted by Attorney Smith, contained no 
reference to Connell's inventory.  Before the closing, Attorney 
Smith, Schmidt, Connell and a few other individuals inventoried 
the consumable goods that would be transferred to the LLC.  
Attorney Smith had the inventory sheets before the closing and 
allegedly took them to her office to be typed.  At Attorney 
Smith's request, Connell provided Attorney Smith with receipts 
for each of the items on the inventory.  Attorney Smith later 
told the OLR that "Ms. Connell oversaw the counting of the 
inventory as it was her merchandise and she held all the 
invoices." 
¶19 After the restaurant opened, Connell asked Attorney 
Smith several times for the inventory total and the amount owed 
to her.  Each time Attorney Smith told her it was not yet 
complete.  Connell never received payment for the consumable 
inventory she transferred to the LLC.  Subsequent accounting 
indicated the consumable inventory totaled $3,468.12. 
Liquor License.   
¶20 According to the OLR complaint, Attorney Smith asked 
Bryan to apply for the Class B liquor license, ostensibly 
No. 
2006AP2112-D   
 
8 
 
because Attorney Smith had an OWI ordinance violation charge 
pending against her, and Schmidt had an old felony conviction.  
However, Attorney Smith told the OLR that she never spoke with 
Bryan about placing the liquor license in Bryan's name and 
asserted she told Schmidt it was Schmidt's responsibility to 
arrange for a liquor license. 
¶21 Bryan stated that she applied for a liquor license at 
Attorney Smith's request on January 28, 2002.  The Town of Pine 
Valley approved the request, but a license was not issued 
because Bryan withdrew her application after Attorney Smith told 
her that she had negotiated with Connell to leave the liquor 
license in Connell's name until it expired in June 2002.  
Attorney Smith later told the OLR that she did not know that the 
liquor license had remained in Connell's name until it expired 
in June 2002.  Such an arrangement would be contrary to state 
law.2 
Buy out.   
¶22 On April 17, 2002, Schmidt and Bryan went to Attorney 
Smith's office to complete the buy out.  Attorney Smith did not 
                                                 
2 Wisconsin Stat. § 125.04(1) provides that no person may 
sell alcoholic beverages without the appropriate license.  The 
Moonlite restaurant operation required a retail Class B liquor 
license.  Sections 125.04(13) and 125.66(1) provide for criminal 
penalties for violations of § 125.04(1).  Wisconsin case law has 
interpreted § 125.04(1) to require the actual owner of the Class 
B premises to possess the license in his/her own name.  See 
State v. Eastman, 148 Wis. 2d 254, 435 N.W.2d 278 (Ct. App. 
1988). 
No. 
2006AP2112-D   
 
9 
 
advise Schmidt to obtain independent legal advice regarding 
Schmidt's purchase of the LLC from Attorney Smith.   
¶23 According 
to 
the 
OLR 
complaint, 
Attorney 
Smith 
prepared and presented Schmidt with a number of documents during 
the meeting.  On Attorney Smith's advice, Bryan agreed to 
replace Attorney Smith as a member of the LLC.  Attorney Smith 
gave Schmidt two boxes that supposedly contained all of the 
financial records for Moonlite.  At the meeting, Attorney Smith 
commented to Schmidt and Bryan that she would now be able to put 
her clients' money back in her trust account. 
Trust Account Infractions.   
¶24 The OLR alleged that Attorney Smith committed numerous 
trust account infractions, including using money from her trust 
account to cover various expenditures made in connection with 
the restaurant purchase, and using the proceeds obtained from 
Schmidt in the buy out to replace some of these funds.  For 
example, Attorney Smith used monies from her client trust 
account to pay the amount due at the land contract closing.  She 
also used monies from her client trust account to belatedly pay 
for the appraisal of the Moonlight property.  She used Schmidt's 
buy out check to pay back the Jones truck loan.  It also 
appeared that the ledgers in those client matters had been 
altered.   
Thiede Matter.   
¶25 Smith also used funds from her client trust account 
belonging to Erwin Thiede to help finance the Moonlite purchase.  
Thiede, now deceased, was a client of Wulff's, the real estate 
No. 
2006AP2112-D   
 
10 
 
agent.  Thiede had listed several properties with Wulff to sell.  
Attorney Smith handled a real estate closing for Thiede in July 
2001.  Attorney Smith held some of the proceeds from the buyer 
in her trust account pending clearing up liens that were 
clouding the title.  Wulff secured the releases from the 
judgment creditors himself in the fall of 2001 because Attorney 
Smith failed to do it.  By December 2001 Wulff had completed all 
the work necessary to complete the real estate transaction.   
¶26 On January 9, 2002, a balance of $4,294.99 remained in 
Thiede's account.  Beginning in January of 2002 and continuing 
for several months, Thiede and Wulff began asking Attorney Smith 
for the balance of the proceeds due Thiede.  Wulff asked 
Attorney Smith several times to disburse the balance, but she 
failed to do so.  Thiede eventually withdrew two other 
properties he had listed for sale with Wulff, and Wulff lost 
Thiede as a customer. 
¶27 On April 19, 2002, two days after Attorney Smith 
deposited Schmidt's $5,060 in her personal account, she wrote a 
personal check to "Client Trust" in the amount of $4,000 and 
deposited it in her trust account.  The memo line on the check 
reads "Moonlite." 
¶28 A few days after depositing the $4,000 check, Attorney 
Smith wrote trust account check number 1159 in the amount of 
$3,363.39 to Thiede for the balance of the proceeds due him.  On 
April 22, 2002, Attorney Smith also wrote trust account check 
number 1157 in the amount of $801.60 to the Clark County 
No. 
2006AP2112-D   
 
11 
 
Treasurer to pay the balance of back property taxes on the 
Thiede property, which had been due at the time of closing. 
¶29 This 
matter 
proceeded 
as 
a 
default 
proceeding.  
Ultimately, the referee found that the OLR had sustained its 
burden of proof with respect to each of the 17 allegations of 
misconduct contained in the complaint.  As such, the referee 
concluded 
that 
Attorney 
Smith 
committed 
the 
following 
misconduct: 
• 
Two counts of violating former SCR 20:1.15(a)3 by 
failing to safeguard client funds.  
                                                 
3 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S. Ct. Order 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).  Because the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme court rules 
will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
This reference to former SCR 20:1.15 applies to misconduct 
committed prior to July 1, 2004.  Former SCR 20:1.15(a) 
provided:  Safekeeping property. 
 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from 
the lawyer's own property, that property of clients 
and third persons that is in the lawyer's possession 
in connection with a representation or when acting in 
a fiduciary capacity.  Funds held in connection with a 
representation or in a fiduciary capacity include 
funds held as trustee, agent, guardian, personal 
representative of an estate, or otherwise.  All funds 
of clients and third persons paid to a lawyer or law 
firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable 
trust accounts as provided in paragraph (c).  The 
trust account shall be maintained in a bank, savings 
bank, trust company, credit union, savings and loan 
association or other investment institution authorized 
to do business and located in Wisconsin.  The trust 
No. 
2006AP2112-D   
 
12 
 
• 
One count of violating SCR 20:1.15(b),4 by delaying 
disbursement of client funds to Thiede.  
• 
Two counts of violating SCR 20:1.7(b)5 by representing 
a client when her representation was materially limited by her 
                                                                                                                                                             
account shall be clearly designated as "Client's 
Account" or "Trust Account" or words of similar 
import.  No funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm, 
except funds reasonably sufficient to pay or avoid 
imposition 
of 
account 
service 
charges, 
may 
be 
deposited in such an account.  Unless the client 
otherwise directs in writing, securities in bearer 
form shall be kept by the attorney in a safe deposit 
box in a bank, savings bank, trust company, credit 
union, 
savings 
and 
loan 
association 
or 
other 
investment institution authorized to do business and 
located in Wisconsin.  The safe deposit box shall be 
clearly designated as "Client's Account" or "Trust 
Account" or words of similar import.  Other property 
of a client or third person shall be identified as 
such and appropriately safeguarded.  If a lawyer also 
licensed in another state is entrusted with funds or 
property 
in 
connection 
with 
an 
out-of-state 
representation, this provision shall not supersede the 
trust account rules of the other state. 
4 This reference to former SCR 20:1.15 applies to misconduct 
committed prior to July 1, 2004.  Former SCR 20:1.15(b) 
provided: 
 
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall 
promptly notify the client or third person in writing.  
Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted 
by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall 
promptly deliver to the client or third person any 
funds or other property that the client or third 
person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the 
client or third person, shall render a full accounting 
regarding such property. 
5 Former SCR 20:1.7(b) states: 
 
A lawyer shall not represent a client if the 
representation 
of that client may be materially 
No. 
2006AP2112-D   
 
13 
 
own interests in acting as the attorney for the LLC without 
obtaining written consent from Schmidt, and by entering into the 
delayed repayment plan with Wulff.  
• 
One violation of SCR 20:1.8(e)6 when Attorney Smith 
personally paid the outstanding lien on the Jones truck, thereby 
providing financial assistance to a client in connection with 
pending litigation.  
• 
Four 
counts 
of 
engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, fraud and misrepresentation in violation of SCR 
20:8.4(c),7 by (1) converting Thiede's trust account funds to pay 
for the Jones truck, (2) using trust funds to pay the 
expenditures of the LLC, and (3) by misrepresenting the 
financial condition of the venture to Schmidt, including (4) 
                                                                                                                                                             
limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another 
client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own 
interests, unless: 
 
(1) 
the 
lawyer 
reasonably 
believes 
the 
representation will not be adversely affected; and 
 
(2) 
the 
client 
consents 
in 
writing 
after 
consultation.  When representation of multiple clients 
in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation 
shall include explanation of the implications of the 
common representation and the advantages and risks 
involved. 
6 Former SCR 20:1.8(e) states "[a] lawyer shall not provide 
financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or 
contemplated litigation . . . ." 
7 Former SCR 20:8.4(c) states that it is misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2006AP2112-D   
 
14 
 
whether there were adequate funds to pay for the inventory and 
misrepresenting certain disbursements.   
• 
One violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1)8 because one of these 
false statements about a disbursement was made to the court.   
• 
Two 
violations 
of 
SCRs 
20:8.4(a) 
and 
(b),9 
respectively, related to her handling of the liquor license.  
• 
Five counts of failure to cooperate with the OLR in 
violation of SCR 22.03(6).10 
¶30 The OLR sought and the referee recommended a two-year 
suspension 
of 
Attorney 
Smith's 
license 
to 
practice 
law.  
Although not described as a mitigating factor by the referee, it 
is noteworthy that Attorney Smith informed the referee that she 
was injured by a lightning strike in October 2001 and continues 
                                                 
8 Former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides that a lawyer shall not 
knowingly "make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal."  
9 Former SCRs 20:8.4(a) and (b) provide: 
 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
 
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of 
Professional 
Conduct, 
knowingly 
assist 
or 
induce 
another to do so, or do so through the acts of 
another; 
 
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely 
on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as 
a lawyer in other respects[.] 
10 SCR 22.03(6) states that "[i]n 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. 
2006AP2112-D   
 
15 
 
to suffer health problems including "gradual decline in physical 
muscle control, memory and stress management" that induced her 
to close her practice in 2003.  She had not previously been 
subject to discipline.  She also disputed some of the 
allegations, primarily with respect to the amount of knowledge, 
information and control Schmidt had over the financial aspects 
of the failed business.  She noted that the grievants' 
allegations 
were 
not 
made 
until 
after 
they 
collected 
unemployment compensation from her office.  She adds: 
Lest the Court thinks I take any of these accusations 
lightly, this is my life and reputation that has been 
ruined.  I have suffered for more than three years 
with 
Ms. 
Schmidt's 
and 
her 
family 
and 
friends 
accusations.  I had voiced to OLR in 2004 that I 
desired to retire my license as I could not afford 
dues nor attend CLE's for a profession that I could no 
longer practice. 
¶31 Attorney Smith no longer practices law in Wisconsin.  
¶32 On initial consideration of this matter, the court 
issued an order to show cause inquiring whether restitution 
might be appropriate in this proceeding.  The OLR timely 
responded to the court's order on September 21, 2007.  Attorney 
Smith did not respond.  The OLR now recommends this court order 
restitution to a creditor of one of the estates administered by 
Attorney Smith, as follows:  To Robert Barth, d/b/a Sav-Rite, in 
the amount of $425.69, together with interest from November 4, 
2003. 
¶33 The referee's report indicates that Attorney Smith 
represented in a sworn affidavit that she had disbursed this 
No. 
2006AP2112-D   
 
16 
 
amount to an estate creditor (Sav-Rite) for an estate she 
administered 
when, 
in 
fact, 
she 
had 
not 
made 
such 
a 
disbursement.   
¶34 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law in these matters.  We agree that Attorney 
Smith's violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys warrant a two-year suspension of her license to 
practice law in this state, and we conclude that Attorney Smith 
should be required to pay restitution as set forth herein, as 
well as to pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding 
which total $3,504.07 as of May 24, 2007.   
¶35 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Linda C. 
Smith to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 
two years, effective the date of this order. 
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Linda C. Smith shall pay to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs 
are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to 
this court of her inability to pay those costs within that time, 
the license of Attorney Linda C. Smith to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that within 60 days of the 
date 
of 
this 
order, Attorney Linda C. Smith shall pay 
restitution to Robert Barth, d/b/a Sav-Rite, in the amount of 
$425.69, together with interest from November 4, 2003. 
No. 
2006AP2112-D   
 
17 
 
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if she has not already done 
so, Attorney Linda C. Smith 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. 
 
No. 
2006AP2112-D   
 
 
 
1