Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ann T. Bowe
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2020AP000131-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: November 24, 2020

2020 WI 87 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2020AP131-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Ann T. Bowe, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Ann T. Bowe, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BOWE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 24, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam.  
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2020 WI 87
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2020AP131-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Ann T. Bowe, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Ann T. Bowe, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
NOV 24, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.  
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of Referee Robert 
E. 
Kinney 
which 
concluded 
that 
Attorney 
Ann 
T. 
Bowe's 
professional misconduct warrants a public reprimand.  The 
referee 
further 
recommends 
that 
the 
full 
costs 
of 
this 
proceeding, which are $6,482.86 as of September 1, 2020, be 
assessed against Attorney Bowe.   
¶2 
No appeal has been filed from the referee's report and 
recommendation, so we review the matter pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).  Upon consideration of the referee's 
No. 
2020AP131-D   
 
2 
 
report, the parties' stipulation, and the record in this matter, 
we agree that a public reprimand is an appropriate sanction for 
Attorney Bowe's misconduct.  We also require her to pay the full 
costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney 
Bowe 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1980 and practices in Milwaukee.  In 1993 she was 
the subject of a consensual private reprimand.  The misconduct 
at issue in that case involved neglecting two matters for the 
same client; failing to keep the client reasonably informed; and 
making 
a 
misrepresentation 
to 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility.  Private Reprimand No. 1993-24 
(electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts. 
gov/app/raw/000110.html).  In 2011, Attorney Bowe was publicly 
reprimanded for misconduct consisting of failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness; failing to advise the court 
of a jurisdictional defect; filing a certificate of compliance 
with statutory requirements which contained false information; 
having ex parte communications with the court; and making a 
false statement to a tribunal.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Bowe, 2011 WI 48, 334 Wis. 2d 360, 800 N.W.2d 367. 
¶4 
On January 22, 2020, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint alleging two counts of misconduct.  
Attorney Bowe filed an answer on February 25, 2020.  On July 2, 
2020, the OLR filed an amended complaint which also alleged two 
counts of misconduct.  On July 3, 2020, the OLR and Attorney 
Bowe filed a stipulation whereby she agreed that the facts 
alleged in the amended complaint formed a basis for the 
No. 
2020AP131-D   
 
3 
 
imposition of a public reprimand.  The following facts are taken 
from the stipulation and the amended complaint. 
¶5 
On December 6, 2016, L.W., Jr. was charged with hiding 
a corpse in a Dodge County case.  The charge arose from the 
death of S.D., L.W.'s girlfriend and his first cousin.  S.D.'s 
body was found in L.W.'s vehicle, which was parked in the garage 
of a house owned by L.W. in which M.J., L.W.'s biological 
mother, resided. 
¶6 
On December 6, 2016, M.J. was charged with harboring 
or aiding a felon which was related to L.W.'s case.   
¶7 
On December 8, 2016, the circuit court in L.W.'s 
criminal case ordered conditions of his bond that included him 
having no direct contact with M.J. or the immediate family of 
the victim.  In addition, L.W. was to have no third-party 
contact with those persons except through an attorney or 
investigator. 
¶8 
On December 14, 2016, S.J., S.D.'s biological father, 
filed a wrongful death action against L.W.  S.J. and M.J. are 
biological siblings. 
¶9 
At the preliminary hearing in L.W.'s criminal case, 
held on December 22, 2016, the court found probable cause and 
bound L.W. over for trial.  An arraignment was scheduled for 
February 15, 2017. 
¶10 On January 20, 2017, the Dodge County District 
Attorney filed an Information in the L.W. case charging first-
degree intentional homicide-domestic abuse modifier; hiding a 
No. 
2020AP131-D   
 
4 
 
corpse; incest; and two counts of possession of a firearm by a 
felon.   
¶11 On February 14, 2017, Attorney Jason Richard on behalf 
of S.J. and the estate of S.D., filed a motion for a temporary 
restraining order in the wrongful death action restraining L.W. 
and/or his agents from transferring or dissipating any of L.W.'s 
assets, real or personal. 
¶12 The 
arraignment 
in 
L.W.'s 
criminal 
case 
was 
rescheduled several times and ultimately was set for June 8, 
2017.   
¶13 On February 17, 2017, in the wrongful death action, 
the circuit court granted the temporary injunction restraining 
L.W. and/or his agents from transferring or dissipating assets 
for 90 days, with the exception of allowing the expenditure of 
up to $150,000 for legal fees.  The circuit court issued its 
findings of fact and conclusions of law on February 24, 2017.  
That meant the temporary injunction would expire on or about May 
25, 2017.  Attorney Richard did not request a hearing to renew 
the temporary restraining order when it expired. 
¶14 On May 26, 2017, Attorney Bowe met with L.W. at the 
Dodge County jail, at which time L.W. and Attorney Bowe signed a 
representation agreement.  Attorneys Donna Kuchler and Aaron 
Nelson had been representing L.W. in his criminal case up to 
that point. 
¶15 On May 29, 2017, L.W. sent a letter to Attorney Bowe 
in which he stated that the statements by witnesses with respect 
to the gun possession charges were "highly inconsistent" and 
No. 
2020AP131-D   
 
5 
 
that DNA evidence on the guns was "inconclusive."  L.W. said the 
charge of hiding a corpse was vague and there was "no prelim or 
showing proof of any probably cause to restrain his liberty."  
L.W. also wrote there was "no standing for a tenant or guest to 
override sole owner's consent or challenge of a search" which 
referred to M.J. and M.V., who were living at the house owned by 
L.W., where M.J. resided and where the corpse was found.  L.W. 
concluded the letter by saying that "A good position we are in 
Ann is I am a Pre-trial detainee held in violation of U.S. 
Constitution.  Pre-arraigned at that!" 
¶16 On May 31, 2017, Attorney Bowe deposited $149,397.81 
into her trust account.  These were funds belonging to L.W., 
which were obtained from Attorney Kuchler.   
¶17 On June 2, 2017, Attorney Bowe met with L.W. at the 
Dodge County jail.  During that meeting L.W. signed a motion for 
substitution of counsel, which substituted Attorney Bowe and 
Attorney Michael Steinle for Attorneys Kuchler and Nelson.   
¶18 On June 3, 2017, at L.W.'s request, Attorney Bowe 
wrote the following trust account checks from L.W.'s funds: 
 
M.J. (L.W.'s mother) 
 
$ 3,000.00 
M.J. (L.W.'s grandmother) 
$ 1,000.00 
D.M. (L.W.'s cousin) 
 
$ 1,197.81 
D.P. (D.M.'s daughter) 
 
$   200.00 
S.J. (S.D.'s father) 
 
$10,000.00 
T.J. (S.D.'s mother) 
 
$ 7,500.00 
G.C. (L.W.'s friend) 
 
$ 2,500.00 
¶19 At the time Attorney Bowe wrote the checks, she knew 
that S.J. and T.J. were S.D.'s parents.  S.J. and T.J. were 
potential State witnesses.  Attorney Bowe also knew that M.J. 
No. 
2020AP131-D   
 
6 
 
was a co-defendant in a criminal case and was a potential 
witness against L.W. in his criminal case. 
¶20 On June 3, 2017, L.W. telephoned D.M. to ask him to 
pick up checks from Attorney Bowe's law office.  D.M. was out of 
state at the time and instructed his daughter, D.P., to go to 
Attorney Bowe's law office to retrieve the checks.  D.P. went to 
Attorney Bowe's law office that day and Attorney Bowe gave her 
checks made out to D.P., D.M., S.J., and T.J.  D.P. left the 
check for T.J. at D.M.'s house and he subsequently gave that 
check to T.J. 
¶21 On June 3, 2017, L.W. also telephoned G.C. to ask her 
to pick up checks from Attorney Bowe's law office.  G.C. went to 
Attorney Bowe's law office that day and Attorney Bowe gave her 
checks made out to G.C., M.J., and M.J. (L.W.'s grandmother). 
¶22 On June 8, 2017, a motion hearing was held in L.W.'s 
criminal case, at which time the circuit court dismissed 
Attorneys Kuchler and Nelson and allowed Attorneys Bowe and 
Steinle to serve as L.W.'s co-counsel.  The arraignment was 
rescheduled for July 20, 2017. 
¶23 On June 8, 2017, L.W. signed Attorneys Bowe's and 
Steinle's fee agreement.  L.W. agreed to pay a flat fee of 
$100,000 for representation in the criminal case.  Attorney Bowe 
wrote a trust account check in the amount of $50,000, dated 
June 2, 2017, payable to Attorney Steinle for his half of the 
flat fee. 
¶24 On or about June 13, 2017, T.J. notified the Dodge 
County District Attorney's Office that she had received a check 
No. 
2020AP131-D   
 
7 
 
for $7,500 from Attorney Bowe's law office and that S.J. had 
received a similar check for $10,000. 
¶25 On June 27, 2017, Attorneys Bowe and Steinle met with 
L.W. at the Dodge County jail. 
¶26 On July 10, 2017,  Attorney Steinle filed a motion to 
withdraw 
from 
representing 
L.W., 
citing 
a 
breakdown 
in 
communication. 
¶27 On July 14, 2017, the district attorney filed an 
"other acts" motion and a motion to disqualify Attorney Bowe in 
L.W.'s criminal case based on a conflict of interest likely to 
result in ineffective assistance of counsel.  The "other acts" 
motion identified S.J., T.J., and M.J. as State witnesses.  In 
the motion, the district attorney argued: 
The transfer of large amounts of money to State 
witnesses is designed to influence their testimony and 
their cooperation with the State in its prosecution.  
It is most telling that the mother and father of the 
victim are in receipt of the largest sums of money.  
The next largest documented amount is to his mother 
who is a witness to the events surrounding the 
homicide.  All three are witnesses against him. 
¶28 On July 17, 2017, Attorney Steinle was allowed to 
withdraw from representing L.W. 
¶29 On July 13, 2017, Attorney Bowe wrote a trust account 
check payable to cash for $250.  L.W. had instructed Attorney 
Bowe to deposit this amount into the account of an incarcerated 
female friend.  On July 17, 2017, Attorney Bowe wrote a trust 
account check payable to cash for $5,000.  On August 4, 2017, 
she wrote a trust account check payable to cash for $2,500.  The 
No. 
2020AP131-D   
 
8 
 
checks totaled $7,500, which is the fee amount L.W. and Attorney 
Bowe agreed that Attorney Bowe had earned out of the $50,000 
flat fee. 
¶30 On July 20, 2017, a motion hearing in L.W.'s criminal 
case was held, at which time Attorney Bowe was provided copies 
of the "other acts" motion and motion to disqualify her.  
Attorney Bowe agreed to withdraw from L.W.'s case, and the 
circuit court allowed her to do. 
¶31 In the stipulation, Attorney Bowe agreed that her 
conduct in writing checks on behalf of L.W. to potential state 
witnesses carried a significant risk that her representation of 
L.W. would be materially limited by her personal interests. 
¶32 By entering into the stipulation, Attorney Bowe 
admitted the following counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
amended complaint: 
Count 1:  By issuing checks from her trust account to 
potential State witnesses against her client, Attorney 
Bowe violated SCR 20:1.7(a)(2).1 
Count 2:  By making three trust account checks payable 
to cash, Attorney Bowe violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(2)a.2 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.7(a)(2) provides:   
(a) Except as provided in par. (b), a lawyer 
shall not represent a client if the representation 
involves a concurrent conflict of interest.  A 
concurrent conflict of interest exists if: 
(2) there 
is 
a 
significant 
risk 
that 
the 
representation 
of 
one 
or 
more 
clients 
will 
be 
materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to 
another client, a former client or a third person or 
by a personal interest of the lawyer. 
No. 
2020AP131-D   
 
9 
 
¶33 The parties state that the stipulation did not result 
from plea bargaining.  Attorney Bowe represents that she fully 
understands the allegations; that she fully understands the 
ramifications should this court impose the stipulated level of 
discipline; that she fully understands her right to contest the 
matter; that that she fully understands her right to consult 
with counsel and that she has consulted with counsel; that her 
entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily; 
that she has read the amended complaint and the stipulation and 
her entry into the stipulation represents her decision not to 
contest the allegations in the amended complaint or the level 
and type of discipline sought by the OLR's director. 
¶34 The referee agreed that by issuing checks from her 
trust account to potential State witnesses in L.W.'s criminal 
case, 
Attorney 
Bowe 
engaged 
in 
conduct 
that 
created 
a 
significant risk that her representation of L.W. would be 
materially limited by her personal interest.  The referee 
commented that at a July 14, 2020 hearing, Attorney Bowe 
explained the reason for writing the checks.  Attorney Bowe said 
L.W. had settled a large personal injury case and had a large 
amount of money at his disposal.  She said at the time the 
criminal charges were filed, there were various actions seeking 
to freeze or seize those funds.  She said at the time L.W. 
                                                                                                                                                             
2 SCR 20:1.15(f)(2)a. provides:  "No withdrawal of cash 
shall me made from a trust account or from a deposit to a trust 
account.  No check shall be made payable to "Cash."  No 
withdrawal shall be made from a trust account by automated 
teller or cash dispensing machine." 
No. 
2020AP131-D   
 
10 
 
retained her in the criminal case none of those actions had been 
successful, but L.W. feared that he would soon not have access 
to that money and while he still had it he wanted to make gifts 
to a number of people, using her to disburse the funds.  The 
referee 
commented, 
"one 
need 
not 
dwell 
on 
the 
possible 
hypothetical problems that this could have created; the details 
of this case are living proof that this was a bad idea."  The 
referee said to Attorney Bowe's credit, she realized she could 
not defend against the district attorney's motion to remove her 
from the case and she immediately stepped aside.  The referee 
noted that Attorney Bowe's counsel commented that Attorney Bowe, 
"perceived as a necessity the appeasing of a difficult client, 
as [L.W.] most certainly was." 
¶35 The referee concluded that a public reprimand was an 
appropriate sanction for Attorney Bowe's misconduct.   
¶36 This court 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 de novo.  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 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. 
¶37 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of 
fact, 
which 
are 
largely 
derived 
from 
the 
parties' 
stipulation, are clearly erroneous, so we adopt them.  We also 
No. 
2020AP131-D   
 
11 
 
adopt the referee's conclusions of law with respect to the 
alleged misconduct.  
¶38 With respect to the sanction, we agree that a public 
reprimand is an appropriate sanction.  While no two cases are 
preciously identical, we find that Public Reprimand of Kristin 
Schrank, 
No. 
2018-08 
(electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/003045.html) is somewhat 
analogous.  Attorney Schrank was an assistant district attorney.  
Her responsibilities included answering questions and assisting 
law enforcement during non-business hours.  While working at a 
different part-time job, Attorney Schrank asked a friend, who 
was a former assistant district attorney but who was not 
authorized to answer the duty district attorney phone at that 
time, to respond to any calls from law enforcement.   
¶39 During that time, officers from a police department 
attempted to contact Attorney Schrank about an arrestee's 
refusal to consent to a blood draw following an operating while 
intoxicated arrest with injuries.  Attorney Schrank's friend 
answered the call and advised the officer to obtain a search 
warrant.  The friend represented himself as an intern at the 
district attorney's office and gave the name of an intern.  
Attorney Schrank subsequently appeared in court on the matter 
and dismissed the case without providing any reason.  Following 
an 
investigation 
into 
her 
conduct, 
Attorney 
Schrank 
was 
convicted of misdemeanor attempted misconduct in public office.  
Her personal interest presented a conflict of interest.  Like 
Attorney Schrank, Attorney Bowe made poor decisions in writing 
No. 
2020AP131-D   
 
12 
 
checks to potential witnesses in L.W.'s case, which ultimately 
created a conflict of interest that impacted the administration 
of justice.  A public reprimand is warranted. 
¶40 IT IS ORDERED that Ann T. Bowe is publicly reprimanded 
for her professional misconduct. 
¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Ann T. Bowe shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which total $6,482.86 
as of September 1, 2020. 
 
No. 
2020AP131-D   
 
 
 
1