Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Beth M. Bant
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2018AP000540-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: January 26, 2021

2021 WI 3 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2018AP540-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Beth M. Bant, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant- Respondent, 
     v. 
Beth M. Bant, 
          Respondent- Appellant 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY BANT REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS 
Reported at 389 Wis. 2d 446,936 N.W.2d 152 
PDC No:2019 WI 107 - Published 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 26, 2021   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam.  
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2021 WI 3
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2018AP540-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Beth M. Bant, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Beth M. Bant, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
FILED 
 
JAN 26, 2021 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report filed by Referee 
David A. Piehler recommending that the court reinstate the 
license of Beth M. Bant to practice law in Wisconsin.  No appeal 
has been filed from the referee's report and recommendation.  
Accordingly, our review proceeds pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
(SCR) 22.33(3).  Upon careful review of the matter, we adopt the 
referee's findings and conclusions and agree that Attorney 
Bant's petition for reinstatement should be granted.  We also 
agree with the referee that the costs of the reinstatement 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
2 
 
proceeding, which are $4,149.29 as of November 24, 2020, should 
be paid by Attorney Bant. 
¶2 
Attorney 
Bant 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 2013.  Her license to practice law in Wisconsin was 
suspended for six months, effective January 29, 2020, as a 
result of two counts of misconduct arising out of her work as an 
in-house lawyer for a Wisconsin insurance company.  Attorney 
Bant made false statements and submitted falsified documents to 
her employer to obtain reimbursement for expenses she allegedly 
incurred in attending a conference that in fact she did not 
attend.  She provided falsified documents to her employer when 
questioned about the request for expense reimbursements.  See In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bant, 2019 WI 107, 389 
Wis. 2d 446, 936 N.W.2d 152. 
¶3 
Attorney 
Bant 
filed 
a 
petition 
seeking 
the 
reinstatement of her Wisconsin law license on June 16, 2020.  
She filed an affidavit in support of her petition.  The Office 
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a response on August 20, 2020 
stating that its investigation did not reveal facts that would 
demonstrate Attorney Bant could not meet her burden of proof for 
reinstatement. 
¶4 
A hearing was held before the referee on October 6, 
2020, in Phillips, Wisconsin.  The only witness at the hearing 
was Attorney Bant. 
¶5 
On November 3, 2020, the referee issued a report 
concluding that Attorney Bant had satisfied her burden of proof 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
3 
 
and had met the requirements for reinstatement set forth in 
SCR 22.31. 
¶6 
The referee found that Attorney Bant fully complied 
with the terms of the order of suspension; she has paid the 
costs of the prior proceeding; and she has made restitution of 
the payments she fraudulent obtained.  The referee notes that 
during her suspension, Attorney Bant has done volunteer work 
with 4-H and at community-based residential facilities (CBRF).  
She has sewn COVID masks for a CBRF.  She was hired to work on 
the U.S. census. 
¶7 
The referee said Attorney Bant credibly testified at 
the hearing about the impact that her suspension and related 
proceedings have had on her life and her resolve not to repeat 
that.  Attorney Bant stated she underwent a six-month period of 
introspection after being fired from her job during which she 
examined her career choice.  She ultimately decided to pursue 
the practice of law in a small town, providing needed legal 
services to a rural area, which areas are traditionally 
underserved.  Attorney Bant testified at the hearing that her 
suspension and its surrounding circumstances have given her a 
deeper understanding of the Attorney's Oath and the standards 
imposed on members of the bar, and she has committed to holding 
herself to a high standard of practice. 
¶8 
The referee noted that Attorney Bant provided written 
recommendations 
from 
eight 
individuals 
who 
recommend 
her 
reinstatement and who opined that her return to the practice of 
law will be beneficial to her clients and the community.  
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
4 
 
Attorney Bant indicated that she plans to manage her practice to 
avoid pressures that might lead to ethical lapses by not 
practicing in a corporate environment, by carefully screening 
clients, and by declining to represent clients who would ask her 
to act in an unethical fashion.  She has undergone training in 
managing her trust account, and has had her staff take such 
training also.  She reconciles her trust account more frequently 
than required by the supreme court rules.  Her practice includes 
rendering 
detailed 
closing 
statements 
for 
real 
estate 
transactions to show how funds pass through her trust account.  
She limits handling of funds for elderly clients involved in 
Medicaid 
planning, 
instead 
having 
her 
clients 
handle 
transactions 
themselves. 
 
Attorney 
Dale 
Onchuck 
will 
be 
available to Attorney Bant as a resource if she is allowed to 
resume the practice of law. 
¶9 
The referee found that Attorney Bant's behavior during 
the period of her suspension has been exemplary.  He found that 
Attorney Bant has met her burden to show that she is of good 
moral character.  The referee went on to say:   
The remaining questions, remedying the causes of the 
misbehavior, protecting the administration of justice 
and the public interest, and the ability of the 
Petitioner to be safely recommended to the legal 
profession, the courts and the public as fit to be 
consulted by and to represent others in matters of 
trust and confidence, and to aid in the administration 
of justice, are interrelated.  I don't believe we will 
ever be able to understand or explain the misbehavior 
that led to the court's discipline. It was not 
rational, particularly considering the significant 
financial and emotional cost for Ms. Bant compared to 
the amount involved in the misconduct.  While the cost 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
5 
 
to Ms. Bant was only learned after the fact, she 
testified credibly that the process of discipline and 
her suspension have impressed upon her the need to 
scrupulously adhere to the rules of professional 
responsibility.  Ms. Bant became visibly emotional 
twice during the hearing while describing the effect 
the discipline has had on her and her family. I find 
those 
displays 
of 
emotion 
were 
genuine, 
and 
demonstrate 
remorse, . . .. 
 
She 
also 
credibly 
testified about her commitment to avoid further 
misconduct.  She testified that she would hold herself 
to a high standard in the future. . . .  
Ms. Bant wishes to resume her practice of law in 
Phillips, involving in large measure dealing with the 
elderly, a vulnerable population.  She also plans to 
handle 
real 
estate 
transactions, 
which 
involve 
handling large sums of money. 
¶10 The referee noted that Attorney Bant has indicated 
that Attorney Onchuck will be available to consult with her.  
The referee said that Attorney Onchuck has had an opportunity to 
observe how Attorney Bant interacts with clients after her 
misconduct but prior to her suspension, and the referee found 
Attorney Onchuck's comments helpful and persuasive.  The referee 
noted that the State Bar of Wisconsin has publicized the need 
for attorneys in rural areas, and transactional and elder law 
attorneys are said to be a particular need.  The referee 
concluded,  
With her added ethical education through her numerous 
[continuing legal education] credits, with her stated 
commitment to adhere to the highest standards of 
practice, and with the safeguards and policies she 
plans to institute should her license to practice law 
be reinstated, I believe Ms. Bant can safely be 
recommended to the courts and the public as fit to 
practice law as she intends. 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
6 
 
¶11 When we review a referee's report and recommendation, 
we 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.   
¶12 Supreme Court Rule 22.29(4) provides that a petition 
for reinstatement must show all the following: 
(a) The petitioner desires to have the petitioner's 
license reinstated.  
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during the 
period of suspension or revocation.  
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the terms 
of the order of suspension or revocation and will 
continue to comply with them until the petitioner's 
license is reinstated.  
(d) The 
petitioner 
has 
maintained 
competence 
and 
learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities.  
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension or 
revocation has been exemplary and above reproach.  
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of and 
attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon 
members of the bar and will act in conformity with the 
standards.  
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to the 
legal profession, the courts and the public as a 
person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 
them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence and in general to aid in the administration 
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 
the courts.  
(h) The 
petitioner 
has 
fully 
complied 
with 
the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26.  
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
7 
 
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license if 
reinstated.  
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation. 
¶13 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1)(c) provides that an 
attorney seeking reinstatement has the burden of demonstrating 
all of the above requirements by clear, satisfactory, and 
convincing evidence.  Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) also provides 
that an attorney seeking reinstatement must show by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or she has the 
moral character to practice law; that his or her resumption of 
the 
practice 
of 
law 
will 
not 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
administration of justice or subversive to the public interest; 
and that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of 
the underlying disciplinary order.  See SCR 22.31(1)(a), (b), 
and (d).   
¶14 Upon review of the record, we agree that Attorney Bant 
has established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence 
that 
she 
has 
satisfied 
all 
the 
criteria 
necessary 
for 
reinstatement.  Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of 
fact and conclusions of law and we accept the referee's 
recommendation to reinstate Attorney Bant's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin.  As is our usual custom, we also find it 
appropriate to assess the full costs of the proceeding, which 
are $4,149.29 against Attorney Bant. 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
8 
 
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Beth M. Bant to 
practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date of 
this order. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Beth M. Bant shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $4,149.29 as 
of November 24, 2020. 
 
 
 
No. 
2018AP540-D   
 
 
 
1