Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James R. Lucius
Citation: 2008 WI 12
Docket Number: 2007AP001746-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 15, 2008

2008 WI 12 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
07AP1746-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against James R. Lucius, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
James R. Lucius, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LUCIUS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 15, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 12
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP1746-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James R. Lucius, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
James R. Lucius, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 15, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
a 
referee's 
report 
and 
recommendation concluding that Attorney James R. Lucius engaged 
in professional misconduct and recommending that his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a period of two 
years.  The referee also recommended that Attorney Lucius pay 
the costs of the proceeding and that conditions be imposed upon 
his resumption of the practice of law following his suspension. 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We also 
concur with the referee's conclusions of law.  We further 
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Lucius's misconduct 
warrants the suspension of his license to practice law for two 
years.  We further agree with the referee's recommendation that 
conditions should be imposed upon Attorney Lucius's resumption 
of the practice of law following his suspension, and we concur 
that the costs of this proceeding, which are $2,575.61 as of 
October 30, 2007, should be assessed against him. 
¶3 
Attorney Lucius was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1982 and practiced in Greenfield.  On May 29, 2007, 
Attorney Lucius's license to practice law in Wisconsin was 
suspended for his failure to comply with continuing legal 
education (CLE) reporting requirements.  His license remains 
suspended.  He has not previously been disciplined. 
¶4 
On July 30, 2007, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint alleging ten counts of misconduct with 
respect to Attorney Lucius's handling of six client matters.  
All 
of 
the 
client 
matters 
involved 
Attorney 
Lucius's 
representation 
of 
criminal 
defendants 
in 
postconviction/appellate matters. 
¶5 
On September 5, 2007, Attorney Lucius sent a letter to 
the clerk of this court indicating that he did not intend to 
contest the matter and did not intend to resume the practice of 
law at any time in the future.  On September 29, 2007, Attorney 
Lucius and the OLR entered into a stipulation in which Attorney 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
3 
 
Lucius stipulated to all of the allegations set forth in the 
OLR's complaint.  The stipulation stated that Attorney Lucius 
waived his right to a contested hearing before a referee.   
¶6 
The Honorable Dennis Flynn was appointed referee in 
the matter.  The referee's report and recommendation was filed 
on October 12, 2007.  The referee approved and accepted the 
parties' stipulation and found that the OLR had proved by clear 
and convincing evidence all of the counts of misconduct set 
forth in the complaint.   
¶7 
The 
first 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Lucius's handling of postconviction 
matters for J.L.  The state public defender (SPD) appointed 
Attorney Lucius to represent J.L. in June 2004.  Attorney Lucius 
appeared at a Machner1 hearing with J.L. on May 26, 2005.  
Following 
the 
hearing, 
the 
circuit 
court 
denied 
J.L.'s 
postconviction motion.  The following day, Attorney Lucius sent 
J.L. a letter indicating that future appellate proceedings would 
be without arguable merit.  The letter advised that J.L. must 
choose one of three options: (1) have Attorney Lucius file a no-
merit report, (2) have Attorney Lucius close the file without an 
appeal, or (3) have Attorney Lucius close the file and allow 
J.L. to proceed pro se or with another attorney retained at 
J.L.'s expense.  In mid-June 2005 J.L. sent Attorney Lucius a 
letter requesting that he file a no-merit report.   
                                                 
1 State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 
1979). 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
On July 7, 2005, Attorney Lucius acknowledged that 
J.L. had requested him to file a no-merit report.  He outlined 
the arguments he would make in the no-merit report and informed 
J.L. he had received the Machner hearing transcript.  He 
calculated August 15, 2005, as the deadline for filing the no-
merit report.  On or about July 21, 2005, J.L. sent Attorney 
Lucius another letter asking him to file a no-merit report and 
also asking for copies of transcripts.  Attorney Lucius did not 
file a no-merit report prior to August 15, 2005.  When J.L. 
discovered the no-merit report had not been filed, he complained 
to First Assistant SPD Patricia Flood (Flood).  Flood forwarded 
a copy of J.L.'s complaint letter to Attorney Lucius and asked 
him to respond to J.L.s concerns directly.  On September 24, 
2005, Attorney Lucius wrote to J.L. saying he had never received 
a letter after July 7, 2005, indicating that J.L. wanted to 
continue with appellate proceedings. 
¶9 
In September 2005 Flood told Attorney Lucius that J.L. 
wanted him to file a no-merit report.  Attorney Lucius advised 
Flood he would seek an extension of the deadline for filing the 
no-merit report and then would file the no-merit report.  On 
December 30, 2005, Attorney Lucius filed a motion to extend the 
deadline for filing the no-merit report.  On January 6, 2006, 
the court of appeals ordered that the deadline for filing a no-
merit report and no-merit notice of appeal be extended to 
February 15, 2006.   
¶10 On January 25, 2006, Attorney Lucius filed the no-
merit report under cover of a letter saying, "One copy of this 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
5 
 
Report along with all copies of transcripts and the court record 
are being served on the Defendant by copy of this letter."  On 
or about February 6, 2006, J.L. advised the court of appeals 
that he had not yet received all of the transcripts from 
Attorney Lucius and did not have sufficient time to respond to 
the no-merit report.  The court of appeals directed Attorney 
Lucius to certify that he had sent the materials required by 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ Rule 809.32(1)(d) 
to 
J.L. 
 
Attorney 
Lucius 
indicated to the court of appeals that all copies of transcripts 
and the court record were served on January 25, 2006.   
¶11 On March 27, 2006, the court of appeals issued a 
memorandum and order indicating that it appeared from the 
court's 
electronic 
records 
that 
a 
transcript 
of 
J.L.'s 
postconviction hearing of May 2005 was not filed in the circuit 
court until March 23, 2006.  The court of appeals directed 
Attorney Lucius to send a copy of that transcript to J.L. and to 
certify to the court within ten days that he had done so.  
Attorney Lucius failed to respond to the court's order.  The 
court of appeals issued another order reminding Attorney Lucius 
that he was required to serve a copy of the transcript on J.L. 
and gave him an additional ten days to comply.  Attorney Lucius 
did not comply.   
¶12 On June 2, 2006, the court of appeals issued an order 
directing the clerk to send a copy of the supplemental 
transcript directly to J.L.  On July 7, 2006, the court of 
appeals issued a memorandum and order indicating it appeared 
that a portion of the transcript had not yet been ordered 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
6 
 
concerning the postconviction hearing held on May 26, 2005.  The 
court questioned how Attorney Lucius could properly prepare the 
no-merit report without noting that this transcript was missing.  
Attorney Lucius admitted he had filed the no-merit report two 
months before he received the transcript. 
¶13 The OLR's complaint alleged and the referee found that 
in his handling of J.L.'s case, Attorney Lucius failed to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client, in violation of former SCR 20:1.3,2 and knowingly 
disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, in 
violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).3   
¶14 The second client matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint concerned Attorney Lucius's representation of L.R.  In 
February 2005 the SPD appointed Attorney Lucius to represent 
L.R. in a postconviction matter.  On or about February 14, 2005, 
Attorney Lucius ordered transcripts relating to the case but did 
                                                 
2 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 No. 04-07, 2007 WI 
4, 293 Wis. 2d xv; and S.Ct. Order No. 06-04, 2007 WI 48, 297 
Wis. 2d xlvii.  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. 
Former SCR 20:1.3 provides that a lawyer shall "act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
3 Former 20:3.4(c) states 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." 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
7 
 
not advise L.R. of this fact until March 2.  On or about March 
7, 2005, L.R. wrote to Attorney Lucius to ask about the status 
of his case and raise issues he wanted Attorney Lucius to 
pursue.  On March 10, 2005, Attorney Lucius wrote to L.R. that 
the court reporters had until April 14, 2005, to provide the 
transcripts.  Attorney Lucius advised L.R. that when he reviewed 
the transcripts he would keep in mind the issues L.R. had raised 
in his March 7 letter.   
¶15 On April 10, 2005, Attorney Lucius wrote to L.R. that 
a transcript of a preliminary hearing was missing and he asked 
whether L.R. wanted Attorney Lucius to proceed without the 
transcript.  L.R. wrote letters to Attorney Lucius after 
receiving the April 10 letter, but Attorney Lucius failed to 
respond.  On August 22, 2005, L.R. wrote to the SPD to complain 
that Attorney Lucius had failed to respond to any of L.R.'s 
letters, and that Attorney Lucius had not met with L.R. in 
person or called him on the telephone.  On or about August 25, 
2005, SPD Attorney Manager Kenneth Lund (Lund) forwarded a copy 
of L.R.'s complaint letter to Attorney Lucius and asked him to 
respond in ten days.   
¶16 On September 12, 2005, Attorney Lucius wrote to L.R., 
stating in pertinent part that Attorney Lucius had never 
received a response from L.R. addressing the matters Attorney 
Lucius had raised in his April 10, 2005, letter.  On 
December 30, 2005, Attorney Lucius filed in the court of appeals 
a motion for an extension of time to file defendant's notice of 
appeal or motion for postconviction relief relating to L.R.'s 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
8 
 
case.  Attorney Lucius did not forward a copy of this document 
to L.R. or make L.R. aware of its existence.  On January 25, 
2006, Attorney Lucius mailed L.R. copies of a motion for 
postconviction relief and supporting brief.  Attorney Lucius 
filed the motion and brief on February 17, 2006, without 
consulting with L.R. 
¶17 On March 3, 2006, L.R. wrote to Lund indicating he had 
received Attorney Lucius's motion and found it "as well as could 
be expected" for an attorney who had never met one-on-one with 
his client.  On March 17 L.R. wrote to Lund complaining that the 
brief Attorney Lucius had filed was "so basic and incomplete I 
can't see any court buying into it."  The state filed its brief 
in April 2006.  Attorney Lucius filed a reply brief on May 22, 
2006, without any prior consultation with L.R.  On May 25, 2006, 
Attorney Lucius forwarded a copy of the state's brief and 
Attorney Lucius's reply brief to L.R. 
¶18 On July 28, 2006, Attorney Lucius met in person with 
L.R.  This was the first occasion that Attorney Lucius had any 
in-person contact with L.R.  On August 1, 2006, a Machner 
hearing was held in L.R.'s case.  Attorney Lucius appeared at 
the hearing with L.R.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the 
circuit court denied L.R.'s ineffective assistance of trial 
counsel claim.  Attorney Lucius was permitted to withdraw from 
L.R.'s case on November 3, 2006.   
¶19 The OLR's complaint alleged and the referee found that 
by failing to communicate with L.R. regarding the status of the 
postconviction motion, Attorney Lucius failed to keep L.R. 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
9 
 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.4(a).4   
¶20 The third client matter detailed in OLR's complaint 
involved Attorney Lucius's representation of M.A.  In September 
2005 the SPD appointed Attorney Lucius to represent M.A. in a 
postconviction matter.  In November 2005 Attorney Lucius 
requested the trial court extend the time for him to review 
M.A.'s case from October 25 to December 31, 2005, and notify the 
court of appeals of the deadline extension.  The trial court 
granted the requests.  On December 9, 2005, the court of appeals 
extended the deadline for the trial court to decide M.A.'s 
postconviction motion to February 15, 2006.   
¶21 On May 25, 2006, the court of appeals issued a 
memorandum indicating it appeared the trial court had not 
decided M.A.'s postconviction motion.  The court of appeals also 
noted that the status of Attorney Lucius's representation of 
M.A. was unclear.  The court ordered Attorney Lucius to provide 
it with a letter status report by June 16, 2006, advising what 
his current understanding was concerning the status of his 
representation of M.A. and the proceedings in the circuit court.  
The court of appeals also stated that if an extension was 
necessary to keep M.A.'s postconviction process ongoing and 
timely, Attorney Lucius should request it.  Attorney Lucius did 
not request an extension.   
                                                 
4 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep 
a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
10 
 
¶22 On June 21, 2006, the trial court received a motion 
from Attorney Lucius to withdraw from M.A.'s case.  On June 24, 
2006, Attorney Lucius sent a status report to the court of 
appeals indicating that M.A. and Attorney Lucius disagreed on 
certain issues, and that a motion hearing was scheduled in the 
trial court for July 17, 2006, concerning Attorney Lucius's 
motion to withdraw from the case.   
¶23 On August 14, 2006, the court of appeals issued a 
memorandum and order stating that contrary to its earlier 
suggestion, Attorney Lucius had not filed a motion for an 
extension and had apparently withdrawn from representation 
without doing so.  The court of appeals, on its own motion, 
granted an extension of time.   
¶24 The OLR's complaint alleged and the referee found that 
by failing to timely file a written status report with the court 
of appeals and by failing to request an extension to keep M.A.'s 
postconviction process ongoing and timely, Attorney Lucius 
failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.   
¶25 The fourth client matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Lucius's representation of F.G.  In 
April and May 2004 F.G. hired Attorney Lucius to represent him 
in two postconviction matters, one arising out of a Milwaukee 
County case and another arising out of a Waukesha County case.  
Attorney Lucius represented to F.G. that he would have motions 
ready for F.G.'s review by late September 2004.  Attorney Lucius 
failed to follow through on this promise.  On or about 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
11 
 
November 1, 2004, F.G. called Attorney Lucius about the status 
of the cases.  Attorney Lucius advised F.G. that he would have a 
motion done within the next few weeks.   
¶26 On December 1, 2004, F.G. wrote to Attorney Lucius 
expressing concern that Attorney Lucius had not proceeded with 
either case.  F.G. requested that Attorney Lucius transfer the 
Milwaukee County case and a portion of the fees he had paid to 
Attorney Michael Backes.  Attorney Lucius did not comply with 
this request. 
¶27 On March 26, 2005, Attorney Lucius sent F.G. copies of 
a postconviction motion and brief relating to the Milwaukee 
County case.  On April 12, 2005, Attorney Lucius met with F.G. 
at 
the 
Waupun 
Correctional 
Institution. 
 
F.G. 
expressed 
dissatisfaction with the brief Attorney Lucius drafted and told 
Attorney Lucius he did not want the brief filed as written.  
Attorney Lucius never filed the brief in the Milwaukee County 
case.   
¶28 On September 19, 2005, a Machner hearing was held in 
F.G.'s Waukesha County case.  At the close of the hearing, the 
court indicated that Attorney Lucius had three weeks from 
receipt of the Machner hearing transcripts and other transcripts 
to file a brief.  The state would then have three weeks for 
rebuttal, and Attorney Lucius would have two weeks to file a 
reply brief after which the case would be scheduled for an oral 
decision.  Attorney Lucius never filed any post-Machner hearing 
briefs in the Waukesha County case.   
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
12 
 
¶29 On February 12, 2006, F.G. wrote a letter to Attorney 
Lucius indicating he had not heard from Attorney Lucius since 
the Machner hearing and requesting a status update.  Attorney 
Lucius failed to reply.  On February 24 and March 23, 2006, F.G. 
wrote directly to the Waukesha County clerk of court asking for 
a case status update.  On March 23, 2006, F.G. wrote to Attorney 
Lucius asking for a status update.  Attorney Lucius failed to 
respond.   
¶30 On April 14, 2006, the Waukesha County court sent a 
notice setting the case for a hearing on May 5, 2006.  On 
April 16, 2006, F.G. wrote to Attorney Lucius saying he had not 
heard from Attorney Lucius in six months and had no idea what 
had happened with his case.  F.G. was produced in Waukesha 
County circuit court for the May 5, 2006, hearing but Attorney 
Lucius did not appear.  The matter was rescheduled to May 31, 
2006, but Attorney Lucius again did not appear.  The circuit 
court found Attorney Lucius in contempt and ordered termination 
of his representation of F.G.   
¶31 The OLR's complaint alleged and the referee found that 
Attorney Lucius failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing F.G., in violation of SCR 20:1.3, and 
failed to keep F.G. reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter 
and 
promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).   
¶32 The 
fifth 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Lucius's representation of D.C.  In 
October 2005 the SPD appointed Attorney Lucius to represent D.C. 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
13 
 
in a postconviction proceeding.  On November 20, 2005, Attorney 
Lucius sent D.C. a letter requesting transcripts or a statement 
that D.C. did not possess any transcripts.  D.C. obtained the 
transcripts and instructed members of his family to drop them 
off at Attorney Lucius's office.  Thereafter, D.C.'s family 
tried to telephone Attorney Lucius and make arrangements to drop 
off the transcripts at Attorney Lucius's office on several 
occasions, to no avail. 
¶33 On February 25, 2006, Attorney Lucius informed D.C. 
that he had not yet received the transcripts.  Attorney Lucius 
also said he had received a note from C.C., a member of D.C.'s 
family, and had received a number of phone calls, but that when 
he tried to return the calls no one answered.  Attorney Lucius 
asked D.C. to mail the transcripts.  D.C. wrote a letter to the 
SPD saying he did not want to mail the transcripts because he 
was afraid Attorney Lucius might not get them "due to the fact 
that I know his office or what ever it is, is an apartment with 
other unknown people living there."  On May 26, 2006, SPD Flood 
sent Attorney Lucius a letter requesting that he arrange to have 
D.C.'s family drop off the transcripts at the SPD office so 
Attorney Lucius could pick them up there.  Attorney Lucius 
picked up the D.C. transcripts from the SPD on July 27, 2006.  
On November 6, 2006, Attorney Lucius filed a motion to withdraw 
as D.C.'s counsel and sent D.C. a letter saying that as of 
December 1, 2006, Attorney Lucius would be discontinuing the 
practice of law. 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
14 
 
¶34 The OLR's complaint alleged and the referee found that 
Attorney Lucius failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing D.C., in violation of SCR 20:1.3.   
¶35 The 
final 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Lucius's representation of E.T.  In 
August 2004 the SPD appointed Attorney Lucius to represent E.T. 
in postconviction proceedings.  While the proceedings were 
pending, 
E.T.'s 
probation 
was 
revoked 
and 
judgments 
of 
revocation were entered in February 2005.  Attorney Lucius was 
then 
appointed 
to 
pursue 
postconviction 
relief 
from 
the 
sentences imposed after revocation.   
¶36 Between February 2005 and October 2005 Attorney Lucius 
failed to inform E.T. of the status of the postconviction motion 
in the revocation matters or of the status of the appeals of the 
underlying convictions.  In February and July 2005 E.T. sent 
letters to Attorney Lucius providing him with E.T.'s new address 
and informing Attorney Lucius of some research E.T. had done.  
Attorney Lucius failed to respond. 
¶37 Attorney Lucius drafted a letter dated October 18, 
2005, 
regarding 
a 
postconviction 
motion 
concerning 
the 
revocation of E.T.'s probation.  The letter indicated that a 
challenge to the imposed sentence would lack appellate merit.  
Attorney Lucius's letter advised that E.T. must choose one of 
three options: (1) have Attorney Lucius file a no-merit report, 
(2) have Attorney Lucius close the file without an appeal, or 
(3) have Attorney Lucius close the file and allow E.T. to 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
15 
 
proceed pro se or with another attorney retained at E.T.'s 
expense.   
¶38 E.T. denied receiving the October 18, 2005, letter 
until February 2006.  On January 27, 2006, Attorney Lucius 
informed the court of appeals that he had calculated March 13, 
2006, as the deadline to file a no-merit report or appeal in 
E.T.'s revocation matters.  Attorney Lucius did not file a no-
merit report or appeal prior to March 13, 2006.   
¶39 On or about February 1, 2006, Attorney Lucius had 
telephone contact with E.T.  Other than the disputed October 18, 
2005, letter, this was the only contact Attorney Lucius had with 
E.T. since the revocation hearing in February 2005.  On or about 
March 3, 2006, E.T. sent a letter to Attorney Lucius requesting 
legal advice concerning the consequences of E.T. agreeing to 
have Attorney Lucius file a no-merit report.  Attorney Lucius 
failed to respond. 
¶40 On or about March 28, 2006, E.T. sent Attorney Lucius 
a letter requesting information about the outcome of the 
March 13, 2006, deadline and copies of motions or briefs 
Attorney Lucius had filed on E.T.'s behalf.  Attorney Lucius 
failed to respond.   
¶41 On May 11, 2006, the court of appeals noted that it 
had heard nothing further about the status of the appeal since 
January 2006, and it ordered Attorney Lucius to dismiss the 
appeals, provide a written status report, or take other 
appropriate action by May 31, 2006.  Attorney Lucius failed to 
respond to the order.  On June 12, 2006, the court of appeals 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
16 
 
established a new deadline of June 19, 2006, for Attorney Lucius 
to comply.  Attorney Lucius failed to respond.   
¶42 On June 26, 2006, the court of appeals noted that 
Attorney Lucius had failed to respond to its previous orders.  
Noting that a contempt hearing would consume considerable 
resources and that neither the court nor E.T. would have great 
confidence in an attorney's work product produced under the 
threat of contempt, the court strongly encouraged the SPD to 
appoint new counsel for E.T.  On July 13, 2006, the court of 
appeals acknowledged that Attorney Lucius had filed a status 
report, and it ordered Attorney Lucius to file briefs on E.T.'s 
appeals by August 25, 2006.   
¶43 The OLR's complaint alleged and the referee found that 
Attorney Lucius failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing E.T., in violation of SCR 20:1.3; 
failed to keep E.T. reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter and promptly comply with requests for information, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(a); and failed to explain a matter to 
E.T. to the extent reasonably necessary to permit E.T. to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.4(b).5 
¶44 Although OLR's complaint sought a six-month suspension 
of Attorney Lucius's license to practice law in Wisconsin, the 
referee recommended a minimum suspension of two years.  The 
                                                 
5 Former SCR 20:1.4 states that "[a] lawyer shall explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding the representation." 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
17 
 
referee pointed out that each of the aggrieved clients has been 
convicted of crimes and faced consequences that include the loss 
of freedom due to incarceration.  The referee noted that all but 
one of the clients have issues concerning indigency.  The 
referee also noted that there are multiple acts of misconduct, 
many of them repetitive.   
¶45 In addition to recommending a minimum suspension of 
two years, the referee recommended that Attorney Lucius be 
ordered to pay all of the costs of this proceeding and that, as 
a condition of any future reinstatement, he achieve good 
standing with respect to his obligations regarding CLE as a 
lawyer in this state.  The referee specifically recommended that 
in the event Attorney Lucius intends to practice criminal law, 
he should obtain a minimum of 20 approved CLE credits, and he 
should obtain a minimum of 40 credits of legal education credits 
in the following areas relating to legal ethics:  15 credits of 
general legal ethics, 10 credits relating to the specific 
obligations a lawyer has toward a client, 10 credits regarding 
the obligation a lawyer has to comply with orders entered by 
trial and appellate courts, and 5 credits relating to the 
obligation a lawyer has toward a client in terms of timely 
discharge.   
¶46 No appeal of the referee's report and recommendation 
was filed.   
¶47 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
18 
 
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 626.  
Attorney Lucius has stipulated to all of the allegations in the 
OLR's complaint.   
¶48 The referee's findings of fact in this case have not 
been shown to be clearly erroneous, and we adopt them.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law.  We further agree 
with the referee's recommendation for a two-year suspension of 
Attorney Lucius's license to practice law in Wisconsin.  As the 
referee pointed out, all of Attorney Lucius's clients were 
defendants in criminal cases, and all but one of the clients 
were found to be indigent.  Indigent, incarcerated persons are a 
vulnerable group that lacks significant options in terms of 
alternative representation.  Under the circumstances of this 
case, the OLR's initial request for a six-month license 
suspension is inadequate.  The referee's recommendation for a 
two-year suspension is more commensurate with the scope of the 
misconduct. 
¶49 We further agree with the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney Lucius pay the full costs of this proceeding.  We 
also agree with the referee's recommendation that conditions be 
imposed upon Attorney Lucius's practice of law following his 
suspension.  We agree with the referee that in the event 
Attorney Lucius seeks the reinstatement of his license and 
intends to practice criminal law, he should obtain a minimum of 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
19 
 
20 approved CLE credits in the criminal law area.  In addition, 
we agree that in the event he seeks license reinstatement, 
Attorney Lucius should obtain a minimum of 40 credits of legal 
education in the ethics area.   
¶50 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James R. Lucius to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two 
years, effective the date of this order. 
¶51 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, James R. Lucius 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 his inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of James R. Lucius to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court. 
¶52 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, James R. Lucius comply with the provisions of 
SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶53 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event James R. 
Lucius seeks reinstatement of his license to practice law, the 
following conditions shall be imposed upon his reinstatement: 
A. 
In the event James R. Lucius intends to practice 
criminal law, he shall obtain a minimum of 20 approved CLE 
credits in the criminal law area; and 
B. 
James R. Lucius shall obtain a minimum of 40 credits 
of legal education in the area of legal ethics. 
No. 
2007AP1746-D   
 
 
 
1