Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Margaret Bach
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2015AP001958-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: November 29, 2016

2016 WI 95 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP1958-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Margaret Bach, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Margaret Bach, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BACH 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 29, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 95
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2015AP1958-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Margaret Bach, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Margaret Bach, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 29, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of Referee James J. 
Winiarski 
recommending 
that 
the 
court 
publicly 
reprimand 
Attorney Margaret Bach for professional misconduct and order her 
to pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which 
total $14,765.09 as of August 26, 2016.  
¶2 
No appeal has been filed from the referee's report and 
recommendation, so we review the matter pursuant to Supreme 
No. 
2015AP1958-D   
 
2 
 
Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1  After considering the referee's 
report and the record in this matter, we agree with the 
referee's determination that the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) proved by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence 
that Attorney Bach engaged in some, but not all, of the acts of 
professional misconduct alleged in the OLR's amended complaint.  
We agree that a public reprimand is appropriate and we require 
Attorney Bach to pay the full costs of this proceeding.  
¶3 
This court is familiar with the underlying facts 
giving rise to this case.  It stems from Attorney Bach's efforts 
to advocate on behalf of her adult son, A.B., who is disabled. 
A.B. has a rare medical condition that renders him a danger to 
himself and others.  Since approximately 2006, when A.B. turned 
18, Attorney Bach has engaged in extensive litigation regarding 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  
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. 
The referee issued his report on August 8, 2016.  On 
September 1, 2016, Attorney Bach filed a document entitled 
"Reply Brief to Referee's Report."  The rules governing the OLR 
proceedings do not contemplate a "reply" to a referee's report.  
However, there is no indication Attorney Bach intended this 
document be construed as an appeal from the referee's report.  
It is not captioned as an appeal, makes no reference to oral 
argument or briefing, and would have been untimely.  See SCR 
22.17(1).  We declined to construe it as an appeal.  We will 
treat the document as a post-hearing brief. 
No. 
2015AP1958-D   
 
3 
 
his placement, level and quality of care, payment for that care, 
and guardianship.  
¶4 
Initially, Attorney Bach was appointed her son's 
guardian and cared for him at her home.  However, in 2009, 
following a series of incidents and acrimonious litigation 
relating to A.B.'s level of care, the court appointed a 
corporate guardian for him.  In 2011, the court appointed a new 
guardian, ARC of Greater Milwaukee, n/k/a Life Navigators, and 
appointed Elizabeth Ruthmansdorfer as A.B.'s guardian ad litem.  
Attorney Bach was aggrieved by these appointments and has 
challenged them repeatedly in court.  
¶5 
On July 5, 2011, Attorney Bach was admitted to 
practice law in Wisconsin. She continued to litigate but, as a 
licensed attorney, she is subject to the Rules of Professional 
Conduct for Attorneys, SCR Ch. 20.  
¶6 
On August 31, 2011, Attorney Bach filed a complaint in 
federal court against Milwaukee County and several other 
defendants, naming herself and her son as plaintiffs.  Bach v. 
Milwaukee County, E.D. Wis. Case No. 11-C-828.  The federal 
court dismissed Attorney Bach's complaint and Attorney Bach 
appealed.  On July 24, 2012, the Seventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals dismissed Attorney Bach's appeal. Bach v. Milwaukee 
County, 490 Fed. Appx. 806 (7th Cir. 2012), cert. denied (Feb. 
19, 
2013). 
 
The 
Court 
held 
that 
"Life 
Navigators 
and 
Ruthmansdorfer are the only persons authorized to act on 
[A.B.'s] behalf." (Emphasis added.) 
No. 
2015AP1958-D   
 
4 
 
¶7 
Meanwhile, on June 21, 2012, the Milwaukee County 
circuit court judge presiding over A.B.'s guardianship case 
denied Attorney Bach's request to access the confidential 
guardianship court file.  On July 11, 2012, the court issued a 
written order confirming this ruling.   
¶8 
On October 16, 2012, the circuit court issued another 
written order, this time enjoining Attorney Bach: 
... from filing, without this Court's prior approval, 
either on her own behalf and/or on [A.B.'s] behalf 
and/or on behalf of any other person purporting to 
represent [A.B.'s] interests, any complaint, petition, 
motion, or other request for relief (hereinafter 
'pleading') in this guardianship proceeding, or in any 
other proceeding before any other state or federal 
court or other tribunal (including appellate courts), 
regarding [A.B.] and/or regarding any person or entity 
providing care or services to [A.B.] and/or any person 
or entity who serves as a legal representative to 
[A.B.], except that Ms. Bach may appeal this Order to 
the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.  
¶9 
On 
April 
2, 
2013, 
Attorney 
Bach 
filed 
another 
complaint in federal court challenging the circuit court's 
injunction as well as A.B.'s placement and visitation.  Attorney 
Bach did not name A.B. as a plaintiff, but requested the court 
appoint a guardian ad litem for him.  Bach v. Milwaukee County 
Circuit Court, E.D. Wis. Case No. 13-CV-370.  On May 31, 2013, 
Attorney Bach amended her complaint, naming A.B. as a plaintiff.   
¶10 In June 2013, in state court, Attorney Bach ordered 
transcripts of certain proceedings in A.B.'s guardianship case 
from court reporters.  Later that month, the circuit court 
informed Attorney Bach that the court reporters had been 
No. 
2015AP1958-D   
 
5 
 
instructed to cease their work, based on the 2012 June and July 
court orders.   
¶11 In a June 2013 order, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals 
warned Attorney Bach that "[b]eing [A.B.'s] mother does not 
endow her with the right to sidestep, manipulate or disregard 
the rules by which all litigants must play."  Margaret B. v. 
County of Milwaukee, No. 2012AP1176, unpublished slip op., ¶7 
(Wis. Ct. App. Jun. 12, 2013). 
¶12 On July 31, 2013, Attorney Bach appealed the circuit 
court's 
ruling 
regarding 
transcripts 
in 
the 
guardianship 
proceeding.  The court of appeals summarily affirmed, stating: 
Proceedings in guardianship cases are confidential by 
statute, 
and 
this 
court 
has 
previously 
upheld 
determinations that, because she is not her son's 
guardian, guardian ad litem, or adversary counsel, 
Bach has no standing in the guardianship case, no 
right to review his confidential legal or medical 
records, and no right to assert any legal claims on 
his behalf. 
Bach v. Life Navigators, No. 2013AP1758, unpublished order (Wis. 
Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2014). 
¶13 On September 11, 2013, Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph 
dismissed Attorney Bach's federal complaint regarding the state 
court injunction, and A.B.'s placement and guardianship, warning 
Attorney Bach of the court's authority to enter an order 
limiting vexatious litigants' access to the court system.  
Attorney Bach appealed. 
¶14 On April 5, 2014, Attorney Bach appealed another order 
in A.B.'s guardianship case.  The court of appeals denied her 
No. 
2015AP1958-D   
 
6 
 
petition for a fee waiver on the grounds that Attorney Bach had 
failed to present any arguably meritorious issues for review.  
Bach v. Life Navigators, No. 2014AP1007, unpublished slip op., 
(Wis. Ct. App. Sep. 22, 2014). 
¶15 On May 22, 2014, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals 
affirmed Judge Joseph's decision, ruling that Attorney Bach had 
"abused the judicial process by filing multiple frivolous suits, 
many of which, like this one, could not succeed unless the court 
were prepared to ignore the outcome of her earlier suits."  The 
court also noted that Attorney Bach frequently named judges and 
courts as defendants, despite their absolute immunity.  The 
court ordered Attorney Bach to show cause within 14 days why the 
court should not impose sanctions for a frivolous appeal.  
¶16 On June 12, 2014, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals 
deemed Attorney Bach's appeal frivolous and fined her $2,000.  
¶17 On October 28, 2014, Attorney Bach petitioned this 
court for a writ of mandamus in A.B.'s guardianship case.  This 
court denied her petition, ex parte.  Bach v. Circuit Court for 
Milwaukee County, No. 2014AP2537, unpublished order (S. Ct. Jan. 
12, 2015). 
OLR Complaint 
¶18 In September 2015, the OLR filed a disciplinary 
complaint 
against 
Attorney 
Bach, 
alleging 
six 
counts 
of 
professional misconduct all related to litigation she conducted 
relating to A.B.  The OLR amended its complaint in March 2016, 
this time, alleging five counts of misconduct.  The OLR sought a 
public reprimand and imposition of costs.  
No. 
2015AP1958-D   
 
7 
 
¶19 The court appointed Referee James J. Winiarski and, 
following briefing, Attorney Bach's submission of extensive 
documentation, and the referee's denial of Bach's request for 
additional time to conduct additional discovery, the referee 
conducted an evidentiary hearing on May 9, 2016.  The referee 
rendered his report and recommendation on August 8, 2016. 
¶20 Supreme Court Rule 22.17(1) provides that within 20 
days after the filing of the referee's report, the director or 
the respondent may file with the supreme court an appeal from 
the referee's report.  As noted, Attorney Bach filed a "reply 
brief" but neither party filed a timely appeal.  Accordingly, we 
review this matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). 
¶21 We will affirm a referee's findings of fact unless 
they are found to be clearly erroneous, but we review the 
referee's conclusions of law on a de novo basis.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 
Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  We determine the appropriate level 
of 
discipline 
given 
the 
particular 
facts 
of 
each 
case, 
independent of the referee's recommendation, but benefitting 
from it.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 
34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  
¶22 The referee made detailed factual findings.  There is 
no persuasive showing that any of the referee's findings of fact 
are erroneous.2  Accordingly, we adopt them.   
                                                 
2 We are unpersuaded by the arguments in Attorney Bach's 
September 1, 2016, "reply brief." 
No. 
2015AP1958-D   
 
8 
 
¶23 The amended complaint alleged that Attorney Bach 
committed five counts of professional misconduct, alleging 
violations of SCRs 20:3.1 and 20:3.4.  Supreme Court Rule 20:3.1 
is entitled "meritorious claims and contentions."  Supreme Court 
Rule 20:3.1(a)(1) provides that in representing a client, a 
lawyer shall not knowingly advance a claim or defense that is 
unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer may 
advance such claim or defense if it can be supported by good 
faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of 
existing law.  Supreme Court Rule 20:3.1(a)(2) provides that a 
lawyer shall not knowingly advance a factual position unless 
there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous.  A 
Committee Comment published with the rule notes that Wisconsin 
Supreme Court Rules 20:3.1(a)(1) and (2) differ from the ABA 
Model Rules in expressly establishing a subjective test for an 
ethical violation.  See also In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Osicka, 
2009 
WI 
38, 
¶42, 
317 
Wis. 2d 135, 
765 
N.W.2d 775.  Supreme Court Rule 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. 
Counts One, Two, and Three 
¶24 To demonstrate that Attorney Bach committed the 
misconduct alleged in counts one and two of the amended 
complaint, the OLR was required to show that Attorney Bach "in 
fact, knew the claim or factual position [s]he was advancing was 
unwarranted."  See also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
No. 
2015AP1958-D   
 
9 
 
Katerinos, 2010 WI 28, 324 Wis. 2d 12, 782 N.W.2d 398. A 
lawyer's knowledge can be inferred under certain circumstances.  
See SCR 20:1.0(g).3 
¶25 In Count one of the amended complaint, the OLR alleged 
that "[b]y continuing to make filings in state and federal court 
stating claims that had already been ruled to be without merit 
and from which she had been enjoined, Attorney Bach knowingly 
advanced unwarranted claims."  Similarly, in Count two, the OLR 
alleged that "[b]y continuing to make filings in state and 
federal court, including an appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court 
of Appeals that was described by the court as "frivolous," 
Attorney Bach knowingly advanced frivolous factual positions." 
¶26  The OLR contends that "Attorney Bach was warned 
several times by judges that her claims were not warranted yet 
she proceeded with federal lawsuits, as well as with state 
actions in defiance of an injunction.  She knew the claims she 
was advancing were unwarranted . . .  [and her] knowledge can be 
inferred from the circumstances, SCR 20:1.0(g)."  See OLR's Pre-
Hearing Brief, pp. 10-11, (2016).    
¶27 Count three of the amended complaint alleged that 
Attorney Bach violated SCR 20:3.1(a)(3), which provides that a 
lawyer shall not file a suit, assert a position, conduct a 
defense, delay a trial or take other action on behalf of the 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.0(g) provides: "Knowingly," "known," or "knows" 
denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's 
knowledge may be inferred from circumstances. 
No. 
2015AP1958-D   
 
10 
 
client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such an 
action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure 
another.  Violations of SCR 20:3.1(a)(3) are subject to an 
objective standard.  
¶28 The referee expressed frustration with the OLR's 
amended complaint, noting that "OLR wants me to 'infer' Attorney 
Bach's knowledge (of frivolousness, unwarranted claims, and 
intent to harass adverse parties)."  However, while the OLR's 
pre-hearing brief argues that "she knew the claims she was 
advancing were unwarranted" there is no such factual allegation 
in the amended complaint.  Merely alleging that Attorney Bach 
filed the various actions is not sufficient.  The OLR failed to 
allege further that she, subjectively, knew that these actions 
were filed in a frivolous manner, were without merit, that 
Attorney Bach was trying to advance an unwarranted claim, or 
that she sought to harass or maliciously injure another.  The 
referee states: "The amended complaint refers to many cases and 
appeals and it is not my job to guess at what particular conduct 
OLR claims violates a particular Supreme Court rule."  The 
referee continued: 
 
By alleging multiple fact situations that occurred in both 
state and federal courts and then alleging such collective 
conduct violated three separate Supreme Court rules (Counts 
1-3), some subject to an objective standard and others a 
subjective standard, I am at a loss to determine what 
precise alleged misconduct OLR claims violated which rules.  
I cannot apply an objective or subjective test without 
knowing the precise conduct OLR alleges violated which 
particular Supreme Court rule.  
No. 
2015AP1958-D   
 
11 
 
¶29 Moreover, the referee did not agree with the OLR's 
assessment of Attorney Bach's intent.  The referee characterized 
Attorney Bach as a new and very inexperienced lawyer with 
overzealous goals, who plunged herself, unprepared, into filing 
federal court actions and subsequent appeals.  Her filings were 
not competent; indeed they are often frustratingly inept, but 
the referee correctly notes that the OLR did not allege that she 
violated ethical rules requiring competence.  However misguided 
her filings were, the referee concluded that the evidence did 
not support a finding that Attorney Bach filed the various 
actions with the intent of being frivolous or to harass the 
defendants.  Accordingly, the referee concluded that the OLR 
failed to prove by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence 
that Attorney Bach committed the misconduct alleged in counts 
one through three. 
¶30 We accept the referee's analysis and we dismiss counts 
one, two, and three of the OLR's amended complaint.   
Counts Four and Five 
¶31  In Count four of the amended complaint, the OLR 
alleged that by continuing to file lawsuits relating to her son 
and continuing to communicate with her son's health care 
providers in contravention of the injunction issued by the 
Milwaukee County Circuit Court on October 16, 2012, Attorney 
No. 
2015AP1958-D   
 
12 
 
Bach knowingly disobeyed a court order, violating SCR 20:3.4(c).4  
In Count five, the OLR alleged that by ordering confidential 
transcripts of guardianship court hearings in contravention of a 
Milwaukee County Circuit Court order, Attorney Bach knowingly 
disobeyed a court order, violating SCR 20:3.4(c). 
¶32 The referee agreed that Attorney Bach 
knowingly 
disobeyed a court order in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).  The 
record evidence supports the referee's findings. 
¶33  Indeed, Attorney Bach acknowledged at the hearing 
that she intentionally violated the injunction. She testified 
that she followed her parents' vehicle when she knew they were 
going to see her son, and, upon discovering her son's location, 
she had further contact with her son and his health care 
providers in violation of the injunction.  Similarly, despite 
circuit 
court's 
orders 
denying 
her 
access 
to 
her 
son's 
confidential court files, Attorney Bach ordered transcripts of 
certain proceedings without prior court approval.  The record 
supports the referee's finding, that after the injunction and 
without prior court approval, Attorney Bach communicated with 
her son's health care providers and aides; surreptitiously 
followed her parents' vehicle to determine her son's location; 
visited her son in an unauthorized manner; communicated with her 
son's attendants and aides; had unauthorized visitation with her 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides:  "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."    
No. 
2015AP1958-D   
 
13 
 
son, and filed documents in court, all in violation of a court 
order.  We accept the referee's conclusion that Attorney Bach 
knowingly disobeyed a court order in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c), 
as alleged in counts four and five of the amended complaint.    
¶34 We next consider the appropriate discipline for 
Attorney Bach's misconduct.  The referee properly considered 
relevant factors, including, (1) the seriousness, nature and 
extent of the misconduct; (2) the level of discipline needed to 
protect the public, the courts and the legal system from 
repetition of the attorney's misconduct; (3) the need to impress 
upon the attorney the seriousness of the misconduct; and (4) the 
need 
to 
deter 
other 
attorneys 
from 
committing 
similar 
misconduct, In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hammis, 2011 
WI 3, ¶39, 331 Wis. 2d 19, 793 N.W.2d 884; see also In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grogan, 2011 WI 7, ¶15, 331 
Wis. 2d 341, 795 N.W.2d 745 (recognizing the ABA Standards as a 
guidepost).   
¶35 The referee remained mindful that Attorney Bach's 
misconduct all relates to her efforts on behalf of her child.  
Indeed, the referee deemed Attorney Bach's "actions as the 
biological and loving mother" a mitigating factor in assessing 
appropriate discipline. 
¶36 The referee did not condone Attorney Bach's conduct.  
Nor do we.  Attorney Bach's deliberate violation of court orders 
is serious professional misconduct that requires a public 
reprimand.  Indeed, we take this opportunity to caution Attorney 
Bach.  Although, we affirm the referee's conclusion that the OLR 
No. 
2015AP1958-D   
 
14 
 
failed to prove she violated SCR 20:3.1(a)(1), (2), and (3) as 
alleged in counts one, two, and three of the amended complaint, 
this conclusion reflects a failure in the pleadings, rather than 
an exoneration of her conduct.  We are very familiar with 
Attorney Bach's filings.  We recognize that her fervent advocacy 
stems from concern for her child.  However, we must caution 
Attorney Bach that this court's tolerance for her persistent 
refusal to respect and follow rules of court procedure is 
wearing thin. 
¶37  The referee explicitly recommends that we impose all 
of the costs of this disciplinary proceeding, noting that the 
"counts for which I have recommended dismissal do not justify 
reduction in her responsibility for full costs."  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Polich, 2005 WI 36, ¶¶29-30, 
279 Wis. 2d 266, 694 N.W.2d 367 (holding that even when a 
respondent prevails on a number of counts, it is still the 
court's policy to assess full costs).  We agree with the 
referee: nothing about this case warrants deviating from our 
general policy of imposing all costs upon the respondent.  See 
SCR 22.12.  Attorney Bach is ordered to pay the full costs of 
the proceeding.   
¶38 Consistent with the referee's recommendation and as is 
standard procedure, Attorney Bach may contact the OLR to request 
a payment plan that will enable Attorney Bach to pay the costs 
of this proceeding in a manner consistent with her financial 
ability.  We accept the OLR's statement that restitution is not 
warranted in this matter.  
No. 
2015AP1958-D   
 
15 
 
¶39 IT IS ORDERED that counts one, two, and three of the 
amended complaint are dismissed. 
¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Margaret Bach is publicly 
reprimanded for her professional misconduct.  
¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Margaret Bach shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $14,765.09. 
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 
been full compliance with all conditions of this order. 
 
 
 
No. 
2015AP1958-D   
 
 
 
1