Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Tiffany T. Luther
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2015AP001285-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: November 28, 2017

2017 WI 98 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP1285 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Tiffany T. Luther, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Tiffany T. Luther, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LUTHER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 28, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, J. dissents. 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: A.W. BRADLEY, J. did not participate.  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2017 WI 98
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2015AP1285-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Tiffany T. Luther, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Tiffany T. Luther, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 28, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.  
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of Referee Jonathan V. Goodman, approving a stipulation filed by 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Tiffany T. 
Luther and concluding that Attorney Luther committed the 
professional misconduct alleged by the OLR, as stipulated by the 
parties.  The referee determined that a public reprimand of 
Attorney Luther's license to practice law is appropriate.  
No. 
2015AP1285-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Upon careful review of this matter, we uphold the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree that 
a public reprimand is an appropriate sanction for Attorney 
Luther's misconduct.  We also find it appropriate to impose the 
full costs of this proceeding, which are $7,414.04 as of July 
18, 2017.  The OLR has confirmed that Attorney Luther paid 
restitution 
and 
that 
no 
additional 
restitution 
order 
is 
warranted. 
¶3 
Attorney Luther was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin on January 19, 2000 as Tiffany T. Stockinger. 
She practiced in Green Bay, but now lives in Las Vegas, 
Nevada. 
She 
has 
not 
previously 
been 
the 
subject 
of 
professional discipline. 
¶4 
The facts giving rise to this proceeding stem from 
Attorney Luther's involvement with Morgan Drexen, Inc. (MDI), a 
now defunct debt settlement company. 
¶5 
In June 2009, MDI and Attorney Luther agreed that she 
would serve as "engagement counsel" for MDI in Wisconsin.  
Attorney Luther was the attorney providing services to Wisconsin 
residents in MDI's program.   
¶6 
In August 2012, M.M. contacted MDI for assistance 
paying her debts so she could avoid bankruptcy.  She had 
approximately $14,000 in debts, including amounts owed to GE 
Capital Retail Bank (GE Capital).  MDI offered to help M.M. pay 
her debts in three years if she paid MDI $100, followed by $185 
per month.  Under this plan, M.M.'s payments would not be used 
to pay off her debts until they covered MDI's engagement fee of 
No. 
2015AP1285-D   
 
3 
 
$1,295, plus 20 percent of M.M.'s debt.  Before M.M. enrolled in 
MDI's plan, the company read her disclosures that Attorney 
Luther had approved.  These disclosures did not adequately 
inform M.M. that it was unlikely the proposed plan could pay her 
debts.  M.M. completed the MDI forms online, including two fee 
agreements with Attorney Luther.  Attorney Luther's agreements 
with M.M. also charged her $50 per month for various services 
such as review of a document, a simple will, responding to 
email, and file maintenance.  M.M. was charged for these 
services even if she did not use them.  Attorney Luther had no 
contact with M.M. prior to M.M. signing the fee agreements.  
Attorney Luther was aware of MDI's practices, and that her 
client M.M. was using MDI's system.  Attorney Luther did not 
give M.M. information reasonably necessary for her to understand 
the material advantages and disadvantages of MDI's plan or 
discuss with M.M. options and alternatives to it.  MDI and 
Attorney Luther's letters to M.M. were form letters that 
provided little substantive information. 
¶7 
In 
August 
2012, 
MDI 
started 
automated 
monthly 
withdrawals from M.M.'s checking account.  MDI sent M.M.'s 
creditors form letters notifying them of Attorney Luther's 
representation and requested all correspondence should be sent 
to Attorney Luther, via MDI.  MDI did not send copies of these 
letters to M.M. 
¶8 
In November 2012, GE Capital's attorneys sent Attorney 
Luther, through MDI, a letter informing her that M.M.'s account 
was in default.  The letter offered to cure M.M.'s default for 
No. 
2015AP1285-D   
 
4 
 
$716 by December 21, 2012.  Neither Attorney Luther nor MDI gave 
a copy of this letter to M.M. or informed her of this offer at 
the time. 
¶9 
On February 14, 2013, GE Capital filed a small claims 
suit against M.M.  In April 2013, M.M. received the summons and 
complaint in the GE Capital lawsuit, and notice of a May 13, 
2013 hearing.  She contacted MDI.  MDI informed her that because 
she had not yet covered the engagement fee, it had taken no 
action to resolve her debts.  As of April 22, 2013, M.M. had 
paid MDI and Attorney Luther $1,665.  
¶10 MDI showed that M.M.'s account with them had a balance 
of -$115.  MDI directed M.M. to contact Attorney Luther for 
advice about the lawsuit and sent her a limited scope 
representation agreement for that purpose. 
¶11 Attorney 
Luther's 
limited 
scope 
representation 
agreement charged M.M. $550 for her assistance with M.M.'s self-
representation in the GE Capital case.  It also listed various 
charges M.M. would incur, such as $65 for a "Phone Consult with 
Counsel."  M.M. signed the agreement, and on April 23, 2013, 
spoke with Attorney Luther on the phone.  Attorney Luther told 
M.M. that she would not appear in court for a May 13, 2013 
hearing, or otherwise represent her in the matter.  Attorney 
Luther advised M.M. to request a 90-day extension by which time 
she would have enough funds in her MDI account to pay Attorney 
Luther's fee and file for bankruptcy.  Attorney Luther charged 
M.M. $35 for this conversation as a "rush job." 
No. 
2015AP1285-D   
 
5 
 
¶12 On or about April 30, 2013, M.M. spoke with MDI.  MDI 
recorded her agreement to file for bankruptcy.  In May 2013, 
Attorney Luther and MDI sent M.M. two letters informing her that 
they had not received either the necessary paperwork or fee to 
proceed with bankruptcy.  
¶13 On May 13, 2013, M.M. appeared at the GE Capital small 
claims hearing, pro se.  In May 2013, M.M. consulted another 
attorney and also closed her checking account to stop the 
automated payments to MDI. 
¶14 On May 31, 2013, M.M.'s new attorney wrote to MDI, 
asking it stop the automated withdrawals and requesting a refund 
from MDI and Attorney Luther.  
¶15 On June 23, 2013, M.M. filed a grievance against MDI 
and Attorney Luther with DFI.  In July 2013, M.M.'s new attorney 
filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition for M.M., and on August 9, 
2013, GE Capital dismissed its small claims action against M.M. 
¶16 On October 18, 2013, the bankruptcy court discharged 
M.M.'s debts, including those included in MDI's debt settlement 
program. 
¶17 In November 2013, DFI forwarded M.M.'s grievance to 
the OLR, which commenced an investigation.  This disciplinary 
proceeding ensued.  In January 2014, Attorney Luther refunded 
$800 to M.M. 
¶18 The remaining counts of misconduct involve Attorney 
Luther's representation of J.B. on behalf of MDI.  In January 
2013, in response to a television advertisement, J.B. sought 
assistance consolidating approximately $22,000 in debt.  MDI 
No. 
2015AP1285-D   
 
6 
 
offered J.B. a plan to assist with his debts if he paid MDI $260 
per month.  J.B.'s payments would not be used to pay off his 
debts until they covered MDI's engagement fee of $1,750, plus 20 
percent of J.B.'s debt.  
¶19 Before J.B. enrolled in MDI's plan, the company read 
him disclosures that Attorney Luther had approved. These 
disclosures did not adequately inform J.B. that it was unlikely 
that the proposed plan could pay his debts.  J.B. completed MDI 
forms online, including two fee agreements with Attorney Luther.  
Attorney Luther's agreements with J.B. charged him $50 per month 
for various services such as review of a document, a simple 
will, responding to email, and file maintenance.  MDI charged 
J.B. for these services, even if he did not use them.  
¶20 Attorney Luther had no contact with J.B. prior to J.B. 
signing the fee agreements.  Attorney Luther was aware of MDI's 
practices, and that her client J.B. was using MDI's system.  
Attorney Luther did not give J.B. information reasonably 
necessary for him to understand the material advantages and 
disadvantages of MDI's plan, nor did she discuss alternatives to 
it.  
¶21 On January 28, 2013, Attorney Luther called J.B. to 
welcome him to the MDI program.  This was their only personal 
contact during the representation.  In January 2013, MDI started 
automated monthly account withdrawals from J.B.'s checking 
account. 
¶22 In March 2013, MDI sent J.B.'s creditors form letters 
notifying them of Attorney Luther's representation and requested 
No. 
2015AP1285-D   
 
7 
 
all correspondence should be sent to Attorney Luther, via MDI.  
MDI did not send copies of these letters to J.B. 
¶23 In April, August, and October of 2013, MDI rejected 
settlement offers from J.B.'s creditors.  Neither Attorney 
Luther nor MDI informed J.B. of the settlement offers. 
¶24 In January 2014, J.B. learned that MDI was not paying 
his creditors. On February 5, 2014, J.B. spoke with Attorney 
Luther's paralegal, requesting a full refund or full payment of 
his debts enrolled in the MDI program.  While this conversation 
was ongoing, MDI generated a settlement offer regarding one of 
J.B.'s debts for Attorney Luther's consideration.  Attorney 
Luther approved the offer that day, but did not discuss it with 
J.B.  On March 6, 2014, J.B. wrote to Attorney Luther requesting 
a full refund. 
¶25 In April, Attorney Luther requested that MDI refund 
all of J.B.'s payments, less $1,000.  On May 16, 2014, Attorney 
Luther's paralegal sent J.B. a refund check for $3,060. 
¶26 On June 30, 2015, the OLR filed a disciplinary 
complaint against Attorney Luther alleging thirteen (13) counts 
of 
misconduct 
and 
seeking 
an 
18-month 
suspension 
and 
restitution.  Attorney Luther retained counsel and filed an 
Answer.  On August 25, 2015, Jonathan V. Goodman was appointed 
referee.  
¶27 On November 1, 2016, the OLR filed an Amended Complaint 
alleging ten (10) counts of misconduct and seeking a public 
reprimand.  Attorney Luther filed an Amended Answer.   
No. 
2015AP1285-D   
 
8 
 
¶28 On May 17, 2017, the OLR and Attorney Luther filed a 
Stipulation whereby Attorney Luther withdrew her Amended Answer 
and stipulated that she did not contest the alleged misconduct.  
The Stipulation states that "Luther and OLR agree that the 
appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline 
to 
impose 
for 
Luther's 
misconduct is a public reprimand."  It acknowledged that 
restitution had been paid.   
¶29 The OLR's amended complaint alleged, and Attorney 
Luther stipulated that, by failing to provide M.M. information 
reasonably necessary to inform her of the results of accepting 
MDI's debt settlement plan, the advisability of paying fees 
which would not be used to achieve her objectives, or to discuss 
with M.M. other options to achieve her goal of paying her debts 
and 
avoiding 
bankruptcy, 
Attorney 
Luther 
violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(2)1 and(b).2 
¶30 The amended complaint alleged, and Attorney Luther 
stipulated that, by failing to provide M.M. copies of the 
letters sent to her creditors or accurately inform M.M. of the 
actions taken on her behalf, thereby failing to keep M.M. 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) provides:  "A lawyer shall reasonably 
consult with the client about the means by which the client's 
objectives are to be accomplished." 
2 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides:  " A lawyer shall explain a matter 
to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation." 
No. 
2015AP1285-D   
 
9 
 
reasonably informed about the status of her matter, Attorney 
Luther violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).3  
¶31 The amended complaint alleged, and Attorney Luther 
stipulated that, by failing to inform M.M. of the default/right 
to cure notice from GE Capital, Attorney Luther violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3), and thereby preventing M.M. from making an 
informed decision regarding the representation, Attorney Luther  
violated SCR 
20:1.4(b). 
¶32 The amended complaint alleged, and Attorney Luther 
stipulated that, by charging M.M. a $50 monthly fee for which 
M.M. received no meaningful services, and which was not used for 
any 
expenses 
specifically 
related 
to 
the 
representation, 
Attorney Luther violated SCR 20:1.5(a).4 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
4 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides: 
(a) A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, 
charge, 
or 
collect 
an 
unreasonable 
fee 
or 
an 
unreasonable amount for expenses. The factors to be 
considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee 
include the following:  
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and 
difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill 
requisite to perform the legal service properly;  
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 
that the acceptance of the particular employment will 
preclude other employment by the lawyer;  
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality 
for similar legal services;  
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;  
(continued) 
No. 
2015AP1285-D   
 
10 
 
¶33 The amended complaint alleged, and Attorney Luther 
stipulated that, by failing to explain to M.M. the purpose and 
effect of the advanced payments M.M. was making, Attorney Luther 
violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1).5 
¶34 The amended complaint alleged, and Attorney Luther 
stipulated 
that, 
by 
failing 
upon 
termination 
of 
the 
representation in May of 2013 to refund the entire amount M.M. 
paid to Attorney Luther, when Attorney Luther had provided no 
meaningful legal services to earn the fee, Attorney Luther 
violated SCR 20:1.16(d).6 
                                                                                                                                                             
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or 
by the circumstances;  
(6) the nature and length of the professional 
relationship with the client;  
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of 
the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and  
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 
5 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) provides:  
The scope of the representation and the basis or 
rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will 
be responsible shall be communicated to the client in 
writing, before or within a reasonable time after 
commencing the representation, except when the lawyer 
will charge a regularly represented client on the same 
basis or rate as in the past.  If it is reasonably 
foreseeable that the total cost of representation to 
the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000 
or less, the communication may be oral or in writing.  
Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or 
expenses shall also be communicated in writing to the 
client. 
6 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:   
(continued) 
No. 
2015AP1285-D   
 
11 
 
¶35 The amended complaint alleged and Attorney Luther 
stipulated that, by failing to give J.B. information reasonably 
necessary to evaluate the material advantages and disadvantages 
of MDI's proposed course of action, the advisability of paying 
fees which would not be used to achieve his objectives, or to 
discuss with J.B. other options and alternatives which could 
achieve his goal of paying his debts in full in order to 
maintain his credit, Attorney Luther violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) 
and (b). 
¶36 The amended complaint alleged and Attorney Luther 
stipulated that, by failing to provide J.B. copies of the 
letters sent to his creditors or otherwise accurately inform 
him of the status of his debts, thereby failing to keep J.B. 
reasonably informed about the status of his matter, Attorney 
Luther violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3). 
¶37 The amended complaint alleged and Attorney Luther 
stipulated that, by entering into an agreement for and charging 
J.B. a $50 monthly fee for which he received no meaningful 
services in furtherance of his objectives, and which was not 
                                                                                                                                                             
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred.  The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law.  
No. 
2015AP1285-D   
 
12 
 
used 
for 
any 
expenses 
incurred 
by 
Attorney 
Luther 
or 
specifically related to her representation of J.B., Attorney 
Luther charged an unreasonable fee and an unreasonable amount 
for expenses in violation of SCR 20:1.5(a). 
¶38 The amended complaint alleged and Attorney Luther 
stipulated that, by failing to explain to J.B. the purpose and 
effect of the advanced payments he was making, Attorney Luther 
violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1). 
¶39 Attorney Luther affirms that the stipulation did not 
result 
from 
plea 
bargaining; 
she 
fully 
understands 
the 
misconduct allegations; she fully understands her right to 
contest this matter; she fully understands her right to consult 
with counsel; her entry into this stipulation is made knowingly 
and voluntarily; and, her entry into this stipulation represents 
her decision not to contest the misconduct alleged in the 
amended complaint. 
¶40 On June 28, 2017, the referee issued a report stating 
that "based upon the Stipulation and the fact that the pleadings 
involved herein indicate that Luther had no prior misconduct, 
the Referee recommends a Public Reprimand."  He recommended the 
court impose the costs of the proceeding on Attorney Luther.   
¶41 On July 18, 2017, the OLR filed its statement of costs 
in the amount of $7,414.04.  In this statement, the OLR noted 
that it agreed to a reduction in the proposed discipline because 
the OLR determined that Attorney Luther had paid restitution and 
that her involvement with MDI was limited to overall debt 
No. 
2015AP1285-D   
 
13 
 
reduction services, and was not as egregious as initially 
believed. 
¶42 On August 8, 2017, Attorney Luther filed an objection 
to costs, seeking an unspecified reduction.  Essentially, she 
argued that the OLR initially, but wrongly, thought that she was 
heavily involved in MDI's business.  Attorney Luther asserted 
that she shouldn't be expected to pay the costs for the OLR's 
"overzealous approach."   
¶43 On August 17, 2017, the OLR filed a reply to Attorney 
Luther's objection to costs.  The OLR maintained that full costs 
were warranted. 
¶44 No appeal was filed so we review this matter pursuant 
to SCR 22.17(2).  This court will adopt the referee's findings 
of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law 
are reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Eisenberg, 
2004 
WI 
14, 
¶5, 
269 
Wis. 2d 43, 
675 
N.W.2d 747.  The court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit, 
regardless 
of 
the 
referee's 
recommendation. 
 
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  
¶45 On September 11, 2017, this court remanded the matter 
to the referee with directions to file a supplemental report 
justifying the recommendation for a public reprimand and for a 
recommendation on the costs dispute.  The referee permitted the 
parties to submit supplemental memoranda on these issues and, on 
October 2, 2017, filed a supplemental report.  In it, the 
referee states that "[w]here parties have come to an agreement, 
No. 
2015AP1285-D   
 
14 
 
the referee must find some factor which would shock the 
conscience for the referee to recommend a discipline other than 
that agreed to by the parties."  No case is cited for this 
assertion, probably because there is none.  This is a 
misstatement of the applicable legal standard. 
¶46 We note our recent observation in In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Ruppelt, 2017 WI 80, ¶30, 377 Wis. 2d 441, 
898 N.W.2d 473: 
[I]n 
lawyer 
disciplinary 
cases, 
this 
court 
is 
obligated to act as a protector of the public, the 
court system, and the integrity of the bar——not as a 
scribe charged with formalizing the parties' mutual 
wishes. Although this court fully appreciates the 
efficiency attained through stipulations, we will not 
allow the goal of efficiency to take precedence over 
the necessity of effecting the core functions of the 
lawyer 
disciplinary 
system. 
Sometimes, 
then, 
a 
departure from a joint stipulation is necessary.  
¶47 Just as this court is free to reject a stipulated 
disciplinary sanction as circumstances require, so too, are 
referees. 
 
See, 
e.g., 
id., 
(adopting 
the 
referee's 
recommendation for a 15-month suspension, as opposed to the one-
year suspension to which the parties had stipulated).   
¶48 As no two disciplinary cases are precisely the same, 
there is no standard sanction for any particular misconduct.  
For that reason, it is particularly important that referees 
identify and consider the factors relevant to determining an 
appropriate sanction, which include: 
[T]he seriousness, nature and extent of misconduct, 
the level of discipline needed to protect the public, 
the courts, and the legal system from repetition of 
the attorney's misconduct, the need to impress upon 
No. 
2015AP1285-D   
 
15 
 
the attorney the seriousness of the misconduct and the 
need to deter other attorneys from committing similar 
misconduct. 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan, 2006 WI 38, ¶72, 
290 Wis. 2d 30, 712 N.W.2d 877.  In determining an appropriate 
sanction recommendation referees should consider whether the 
lawyer 
has 
previously 
been 
disciplined 
and 
whether 
any 
aggravating and or mitigating factors are present.  See ABA 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.  Typically, the referee 
will consider factually similar cases.  Stipulated discipline is 
entitled to no special deference. 
¶49 To be sure, the parties' opinions on disciplinary 
sanctions are informative but they are just that – opinions, not 
authorities to which the referee must defer. We, in turn, 
"remain the ultimate arbiter of the appropriate level of 
discipline, owing no deference on this subject to either the 
parties or the referee."  See Ruppelt, 377 Wis. 2d 441, ¶34. 
¶50 Here, the referee has provided case law in the 
supplemental report that supports the recommended discipline.  
We agree that In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shepherd, 
2017 WI 66, 376 Wis. 2d 129, 897 N.W.2d 44 is instructive and 
that the nature of the misconduct is sufficiently analogous to 
this case, that imposing similar discipline is not unreasonable.  
There, we imposed a public reprimand on a lawyer with no prior 
disciplinary history, who committed ten counts of misconduct, 
including violations of the rules regarding fee agreements, 
trust accounts, failure to respond to clients, and failure to 
cooperate with the OLR's investigation.  See also In re 
No. 
2015AP1285-D   
 
16 
 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Trudgeon, 2009 WI 96, 321 
Wis. 2d 560, 774 N.W.2d 469 (public reprimand imposed on lawyer 
with 
no 
prior 
discipline 
who 
committed 
eight 
counts 
of 
professional misconduct including failing to appear at a court 
hearing, failing to properly explain the basis of his fee, 
failing to adequately communicate with his client, and failing 
to respond to reasonable requests for information); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against D'Arruda, 2013 WI 90, 351 
Wis. 2d 227, 839 N.W.2d 575 (public reprimand imposed on lawyer 
with one previous private reprimand who committed 12 counts of 
misconduct, including failing to explain the basis or rate of 
his fee, failing to refund unearned fees, failing to provide a 
client's file to successor counsel, failing to respond to 
reasonable requests for information, and repeatedly failing to 
cooperate with the OLR's investigation); and In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Hicks, 2012 WI 11, 338 Wis. 2d 558, 809 
N.W.2d 33 (public reprimand imposed on lawyer with no prior 
disciplinary history who committed eight counts of misconduct 
including failing to timely pursue clients' postconviction or 
appellate interests, failing to communicate with clients, and 
failing to respond to the OLR's requests for information).   
¶51 On balance, we will adopt the referee's findings of 
fact and conclusions of law that, based on the parties' 
stipulation, Attorney Luther violated the supreme court rules as 
alleged in the ten counts of the amended complaint.  We further 
agree with the referee that a public reprimand of Attorney 
Luther's license to practice law in Wisconsin is sufficient 
No. 
2015AP1285-D   
 
17 
 
discipline.  We agree, further, that notwithstanding Attorney 
Luther's objections, it is appropriate to impose the full costs 
of this disciplinary proceeding on her.  We accept the OLR's 
representation that there is no need for a restitution order in 
this matter. 
¶52 IT IS ORDERED that Tiffany T. Luther is publicly 
reprimanded. 
¶53 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Tiffany T. Luther shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$7,414.04 as of July 18, 2017.  
¶54 Ann Walsh Bradley, J., did not participate. 
 
No.  2015AP1285-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶55 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   (dissenting).  A public 
reprimand is an insufficient sanction for the serious misconduct 
to which Attorney Luther stipulated. 
 
 
No.  2015AP1285-D.ssa 
 
1