Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Richard J. Podell
Citation: 2013 WI 25
Docket Number: 2012AP000371-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: March 22, 2013

2013 WI 25 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP371-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Richard J. Podell, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Richard J. Podell, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PODELL     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 22, 2013   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
2013 WI 25
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP371-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Richard J. Podell, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Richard J. Podell, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 22, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.   Complaint dismissed.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Pending before the court is a report 
filed by Referee Richard C. Ninneman recommending this court 
dismiss 
a 
disciplinary 
complaint 
filed 
against 
Attorney 
Richard J. Podell.  No appeal has been filed, so we consider 
this matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states:   
 
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 
No. 
2012AP371-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We agree with the referee's conclusion that the facts 
of this case do not support a conclusion that Attorney Podell's 
conduct violated SCR 20:8.4(c).  We therefore dismiss the 
complaint.  No costs will be imposed. 
¶3 
Attorney Podell was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1969.  He practices family law in Milwaukee.  He 
has not previously been disciplined by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR).   
¶4 
On February 21, 2012, the OLR filed a complaint 
against Attorney Podell alleging that he engaged in professional 
misconduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) when he filed 
three expense reimbursement requests with the American Bar 
Association (ABA) in connection with its 2010 midyear meeting in 
Orlando, Florida. 
¶5 
Attorney Podell was a longstanding active member of 
the ABA, serving on numerous committees and holding numerous 
office positions.  He was a member of the House of Delegates, 
was past-Chair of the Family Law Section, was Chair of the 
Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section, and also served 
as budget officer of the Senior Lawyers Division.  Attorney 
Podell frequently attended ABA section meetings and ABA House of 
Delegates meetings and often submitted requests for financial 
reimbursement to different ABA sections. 
                                                                                                                                                             
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2012AP371-D   
 
3 
 
¶6 
The OLR's complaint alleged that Attorney Podell 
personally submitted three claims for expense reimbursement 
following the 2010 ABA midyear meeting in Orlando, Florida, that 
included separate requests for reimbursement of the same 
expenses.  In total, Attorney Podell sought reimbursement of 
$2,371.50 from the ABA.  
¶7 
Attorney Podell then received a letter from the ABA 
advising him he had sent "compound" (duplicate) reimbursement 
requests.  The ABA then conducted an audit of Attorney Podell's 
ABA reimbursement requests for the years 2007, 2008, and 2009, 
which revealed that Attorney Podell had submitted duplicate 
requests for expense reimbursement to various ABA entities for 
those years.  The total overpayment by the ABA to Attorney 
Podell for these years was $1,155.80.2   
¶8 
Attorney Podell admitted that he did not send the 
reimbursement requests to the ABA in an appropriate manner.  He 
expressed embarrassment and regret, repaid the ABA the amounts 
calculated as owed, claimed that he often failed to request 
reimbursement for ABA-related expenses and, had he done so, the 
ABA would have had to pay him considerable sums of money, and 
                                                 
2 Attorney Podell testified that during his 40 years of ABA 
service he submitted 200 to 300 such vouchers and from time to 
time, ABA staff would point out errors he had made, which he 
would then correct and resubmit.  Between 2008 and 2010 Attorney 
Podell attended 56 ABA meetings outside the state of Wisconsin.  
Of these 56 meetings, he only submitted reimbursement vouchers 
for approximately 35 meetings. 
No. 
2012AP371-D   
 
4 
 
that 
he 
would not submit any further requests for ABA 
reimbursement.  He immediately sought to rectify his mistake.  
¶9 
There was testimony at the evidentiary hearing about 
the 
confusing 
nature 
of 
ABA 
reimbursement 
policies.  
Reimbursement policies for meals and lodging were a per diem 
rate, which differed based on the type of meeting attended.3  The 
referee 
also 
heard 
testimony 
regarding 
Attorney 
Podell's 
excellent reputation for trustworthiness and honesty.  
¶10 The referee found that Attorney Podell submitted 
requests for reimbursement of his $207.70 airfare to three 
separate ABA entities, totaling $415.40 in duplicate requests.  
He also submitted duplicate requests for reimbursement of the 
cost of ground transportation in the amount of $168.40, for a 
total of $583.80 in so-called compound billing.  The referee 
found that the OLR failed to establish any compound (duplicate) 
billing for lodging/meals.4   
                                                 
3 For example, on the reimbursement form to the Individual 
Rights and Responsibilities Section, lodging and meals were 
limited to $100 per day.  The reimbursement form to the Senior 
Lawyers Division limited lodging expenses to $200 per day.  The 
reimbursement request to the House of Delegates states that 
lodging and meals are not reimbursable, but further below 
provides that certain committee members may be reimbursed at the 
rate of $100 per day for hotel expenses.  The reimbursement 
policies are not designed to fully reimburse one for expenses 
incurred in attending a meeting. 
4 Attorney Podell incurred expenses for the Orlando midyear 
meeting in the amount of $2,861.06 ($2,373.36 for lodging and 
meals; $337.70 for airfare including the reservation change fee; 
$125 for ground transportation; and $25 for miscellaneous 
expenses). Attorney Podell was reimbursed $832.70, so he 
incurred $2,028.36 in expenses for which he was not reimbursed 
for this meeting alone. 
No. 
2012AP371-D   
 
5 
 
¶11 When Attorney Podell reimbursed the ABA he was told 
that the matter was closed.  Nonetheless, in 2010 T. Maxfield 
Bahner, a Tennessee attorney and former ABA officer, learned of 
this matter from an ABA staff member.  The ABA did not ask 
Bahner to investigate the matter, but Bahner began pursuing the 
matter of his own accord. 
¶12 Bahner discussed the issue with numerous individuals 
and set up phone conference calls with Attorney Podell during 
which an ABA staff member silently listened and Bahner's 
secretary also listened and took notes.  Indeed, the referee 
commented: 
[W]atching Bahner testify and considering the number 
of people within the ABA who now were aware of this 
matter; considering Bahner's rush to judgment that 
Podell was guilty of dishonesty from the very outset; 
considering Bahner's obsession that Podell should 
self-report this to OLR despite advice from others; 
considering that phone conversations with his so-
called "friend" were silently being listened to by a 
notekeeper or ABA staff; this referee is reminded of 
the old adage that with friends like this, who needs 
enemies. 
There is no indication these factual findings are clearly 
erroneous.   
¶13 We consider whether Attorney Podell's conduct violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c).  Supreme court rule 20:8.4(c) provides it is 
professional misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."   
¶14 The referee considered the cases cited by the OLR 
inapposite based on his credibility determination that Attorney 
No. 
2012AP371-D   
 
6 
 
Podell's conduct was neither knowing nor intentional.5  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jacobson, 2004 WI 152, ¶50, 277 
Wis. 2d 120, 690 N.W.2d 264 (noting that intent can be inferred 
from the circumstances, and it is proper for the referee to 
assess an attorney's credibility with respect to intent).  The 
OLR thus failed to convince the referee "that an attorney's 
unintentional 
error 
or 
careless 
mistake 
in 
submitting 
reimbursement vouchers to the ABA, without more, will support a 
finding that the attorney violated SCR 20:8.4(c)."   
¶15 The referee deemed it significant that when the errors 
were called to Attorney Podell's attention, he not only admitted 
the mistake, but sought to correct the same and took full 
responsibility for the error.  The referee stated: 
In observing Podell, this referee finds that Podell's 
actions in this matter were not done knowingly, 
recklessly, 
consciously 
or 
intentionally 
for 
the 
purpose of getting a larger reimbursement from the ABA 
than he was entitled to for the meeting.  . . .  
 
This referee finds that OLR has not proven by 
clear, 
satisfactory 
and 
convincing 
evidence 
that 
Podell engaged [in] professional misconduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation with 
respect to his 2010 expense vouchers to the ABA in 
connection with the Orlando midyear meeting.  
                                                 
5 The referee observed, in part, that Attorney Podell has 
been actively involved in ABA activities for 40 years, had 
political aspirations, and attended multiple meetings of the ABA 
outside the state of Wisconsin at considerable financial expense 
to Attorney Podell.  Given this background, the referee found it 
"inconceivable that he would intentionally throw all of this 
away by trying to cheat the ABA out of $583.80." 
No. 
2012AP371-D   
 
7 
 
¶16 Thus, the referee concluded the OLR failed to meet its 
burden of proof that Attorney Podell violated SCR 20:8.4(c) and 
recommended the court dismiss the complaint.  
¶17 A referee's findings of fact will not be set aside 
unless they are clearly erroneous.   We review the referee's 
conclusions of law de novo.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Eisenberg, 
2004 
WI 
14, 
¶5, 
269 
Wis. 2d 43, 
675 
N.W.2d 747.  We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
not clearly erroneous, and we also uphold the referee's 
conclusion of law that Attorney Podell's conduct did not violate 
SCR 20:8.4(c).  Consequently, we dismiss the OLR's complaint.  
No costs will be imposed. 
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the Office of Lawyer Regulation's 
complaint is dismissed.  No costs are imposed. 
No. 
2012AP371-D   
 
 
 
1