Title: Lawyer Regulation System of the State of Wisconsin v. Michael O. Erspamer
Citation: 2011 WI 85
Docket Number: 2010AP000112-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: August 26, 2011

2011 WI 85 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP0112-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Michael O. Erspamer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Lawyer Regulation System of the State of 
Wisconsin By Deborah M. Smith and Bruce J. 
Rosen, Special Investigators, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael O. Erspamer, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ERSPAMER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 26, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
CONCURRED/DISSENTED: 
      
ROGGENSACK, J. concurs in part; dissents in 
part (Opinion filed). 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2011 WI 85
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2010AP112-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael O. Erspamer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Lawyer Regulation System of the State of 
Wisconsin By Deborah M. Smith and Bruce J. 
Rosen, Special Investigators, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael O. Erspamer, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
AUG 26, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   In this matter we review the report and 
recommendation of Referee Timothy L. Vocke that the license of 
Attorney Michael O. Erspamer to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended for a period of 60 days due to his professional 
misconduct, 
that 
certain 
conditions 
be 
imposed 
on 
the 
reinstatement of Attorney Erspamer's license, and that he be 
required to pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding.  
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
2 
 
We also consider the post-report request of one of the special 
investigators to dismiss three of the disciplinary counts 
against Attorney Erspamer. 
¶2 
After fully considering this matter, we conclude that 
Attorney Erspamer's license to practice law in Wisconsin should 
be suspended for a period of 60 days.1  We agree with the referee 
that conditions should be placed upon the reinstatement of 
Attorney Erspamer's license, although the conditions we impose 
differ to some degree from those recommended by the referee.  
Finally, we determine that Attorney Erspamer should be required 
to pay the full costs of this proceeding, which were $4,768.34 
as of August 9, 2010. 
¶3 
Because of the unique factual circumstances of this 
matter and the court's need to obtain additional information in 
order to ensure the protection of the public and fairness to 
Attorney Erspamer, the procedural history of this proceeding is 
rather lengthy. 
                                                 
1 We note that, as of the date of this opinion, Attorney 
Erspamer's license is already administratively suspended due to 
his failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal education 
(CLE) reporting requirements and his failure to pay bar dues and 
assessments. 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
On January 14, 2010, the Lawyer Regulation System 
(LRS)2 filed a formal complaint against Attorney Erspamer in this 
court. 
 
The 
original 
complaint 
alleged 
two 
counts 
of 
professional 
misconduct 
relating 
to 
Attorney 
Erspamer's 
representation of client D.N.3  The LRS requested that the Barron 
County sheriff's department serve the complaint and order to 
answer 
on 
Attorney 
Erspamer. 
 
The 
sheriff's 
department 
subsequently submitted a Return of Non-service, indicating that 
it had been unable to accomplish personal service on Attorney 
Erspamer and containing the following notation:  "HOUSE IS 
BARRICADED – NO CONTACT."  Since personal service could not be 
accomplished, counsel for the LRS served the original complaint 
                                                 
2 The 
complainant 
in 
this 
proceeding 
is 
the 
Lawyer 
Regulation System, rather than the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR), because Attorney Erspamer was a member of a district 
committee, 
which 
assists 
the 
director 
of 
the 
OLR 
in 
investigating allegations of misconduct and in other assigned 
tasks.  See SCR 22.25 (allegations of misconduct against a 
member of a district committee are assigned to a special 
investigator, whose investigative report may be reviewed by the 
special preliminary review panel; formal complaints are filed by 
the special investigator either personally or through counsel on 
behalf of the LRS).  The LRS and the two special investigators 
who have acted on its behalf in the matters addressed in this 
opinion have been represented by a single counsel in this formal 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
See 
SCR 
22.25(7) 
(a 
special 
investigator may prosecute a complaint personally or may assign 
that responsibility to counsel retained by the director of the 
OLR). 
3 Attorney 
Deborah 
M. 
Smith 
acted 
as 
the 
special 
investigator who investigated the grievance regarding the 
representation of D.N. and acted on behalf of the LRS in 
directing the filing and prosecution of the complaint regarding 
the D.N. representation.   
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
4 
 
and order to answer on Attorney Erspamer by certified mail, 
although Attorney Erspamer did not claim the certified envelope.  
See SCR 22.13(1). 
¶5 
The LRS filed an amended complaint and order to answer 
in February 2010.  It again attempted to have the Barron County 
sheriff's department personally serve authenticated copies of 
those documents on Attorney Erspamer.  The sheriff's department 
once more sent back a Return of Non-service, this time with the 
following notation:  "Unable to serve the following papers 
because:  BUSINESS NEW OCCUPANTS; RESIDENCE BARRACDED (sic)."  
The LRS again used the certified mail route to accomplish 
service.  Although the United States Postal Service left notices 
for Attorney Erspamer regarding the certified envelope on two 
occasions, he did not claim the envelope. 
¶6 
After the time for answering the amended complaint had 
passed, the LRS filed a motion for the entry of a default.  Both 
the referee and counsel for the LRS tried on multiple occasions 
to communicate with Attorney Erspamer regarding the disciplinary 
proceeding, but did not receive a response.   
¶7 
On May 10, 2010, the LRS filed a second amended 
complaint and order to answer.  This version added three counts 
of 
professional misconduct related to Attorney Erspamer's 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
5 
 
representation of client R.H.4  The Barron County sheriff's 
department again was unable to serve the second amended 
complaint and order to answer on Attorney Erspamer.  Its Return 
of Non-service this time contained the following notation:  
"HOUSE IS BARRICADED – NO ONE THERE?" 
¶8 
After sending multiple e-mail messages and mailing a 
written notice to Attorney Erspamer, the referee held a 
telephonic scheduling conference on May 14, 2010.  Attorney 
Erspamer did not participate.  The referee's scheduling order 
gave Attorney Erspamer until June 7, 2010, to file and serve a 
responsive pleading to the second amended complaint.  When 
Attorney Erspamer did not respond by the deadline, the LRS filed 
and served a renewed default motion. 
¶9 
Pursuant to an order of the referee, the LRS filed a 
sanction brief outlining the discipline it believed appropriate.  
Its brief stated that its main goal in the proceeding was not to 
punish Attorney Erspamer, but to protect the public from an 
attorney who was not functioning properly.  It said that "[i]f 
this was a situation where the lawyer was cooperative and 
responsive, [the LRS] would be recommending a reprimand, but 
                                                 
4 Special 
Investigator 
Bruce 
Rosen 
investigated 
the 
grievance regarding the representation of R.H. and acted on 
behalf of the LRS in directing the filing and prosecution of the 
complaint regarding the R.H. representation.  Thus, because 
there had been two separate representations and two grievances, 
there are two special investigators listed in the caption of 
this proceeding as acting on behalf of the LRS.  For the sake of 
brevity in this opinion, the special investigators will be 
referenced as Investigator Smith and Investigator Rosen. 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
6 
 
Mr. Erspamer's refusal to cooperate and respond leads [the LRS] 
to believe a reprimand would not adequately protect the public."  
Based on the belief that conditions could not be placed upon a 
suspension of less than six months, the LRS recommended a six-
month suspension of Attorney Erspamer's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin. 
¶10 The referee held a hearing on the default motion on 
June 30, 2010.  Attorney Erspamer did not communicate with the 
referee or counsel for the LRS prior to the hearing nor did he 
appear at the hearing.  The referee ultimately granted a default 
to the LRS. 
¶11 Because of the nature of the allegations in the LRS's 
complaint and an apparent concern for Attorney Erspamer's 
welfare, 
the 
referee 
took 
the 
unusual 
step 
of 
having 
Investigator Rosen testify at the default hearing regarding his 
attempts to communicate with Attorney Erspamer and the results 
of his investigation.  Investigator Rosen testified that as a 
result of his inquiries he became concerned that Attorney 
Erspamer may have been experiencing some mental health problems.  
He noted that he had learned that Attorney Erspamer had 
apparently cut off communication with his family.  When that 
fact was combined with the facts that Attorney Erspamer, a 
respected and successful attorney, had abruptly disconnected his 
office telephone, had closed his law office, had stopped 
communicating with clients, had refused to communicate with 
Investigator Rosen orally, had spoken to the other special 
investigator only because he had been compelled to do so, and 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
7 
 
had virtually barricaded himself in his house so that the 
sheriff's department could not even serve him with process, 
Investigator Rosen concluded that there were sufficient reasons 
to believe that Attorney Erspamer was experiencing problems. 
¶12 In his subsequent report, the referee made findings of 
fact and conclusions of law based on the allegations of the 
second amended complaint.  He also noted mitigating and 
aggravating facts based on those allegations and the testimony 
of Investigator Rosen, which the referee appears to have 
credited in full.  The factual summary that follows is based 
upon those findings of fact. 
¶13 The first two counts of the second amended complaint 
related to Attorney Erspamer's representation of D.N. on a 
worker's compensation claim.  The retainer agreement for this 
representation provided that Attorney Erspamer would receive 20 
percent of any settlement amount plus reimbursement of his 
expense disbursements for the case. 
¶14 D.N.'s claim was settled and a compromise agreement 
was executed in February 2007.  The administrative law judge 
(ALJ) approved the compromise agreement and included the initial 
payout provisions of the agreement into the final order in the 
worker's compensation proceeding.  Under the terms of the 
compromise agreement, Attorney Erspamer received a fee of 
$8,500, plus reimbursement for his expenses in an amount 
slightly over $1,000. 
¶15 The compromise agreement also required the respondent 
in the worker's compensation proceeding, who was represented by 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
8 
 
Attorney Richard Duplessie, to establish and fund an appropriate 
Medicare Set Aside Agreement (MSA) that would cover D.N.'s 
anticipated future medical expenses that were alleged to have 
resulted from her work-related injuries.  Between March 2007 and 
June 2008 Attorney Erspamer and Attorney Duplessie attempted to 
negotiate the detailed terms of the MSA.  As part of this 
process, a firm was selected to perform an analysis of D.N.'s 
future medical expenses.  Attorney Erspamer obtained D.N.'s 
signature on medical release forms and forwarded them to the 
firm conducting the analysis.  When the analysis was completed, 
Attorney Erspamer forwarded a copy of the firm's report to D.N.  
Attorney Erspamer also exchanged correspondence with Attorney 
Duplessie regarding the language to be included in the MSA.  
During this period of slightly more than a year, Attorney 
Erspamer sent copies of his correspondence with Attorney 
Duplessie to D.N. 
¶16 In March 2008 Attorney Duplessie wrote a letter to 
Attorney Erspamer and sent a copy of it directly to D.N.  In 
June 2008 Attorney Erspamer sent a response asking Attorney 
Duplessie to refrain from having direct contact with his client 
and inquiring about the status of some changes to the draft 
language of the MSA.  Attorney Erspamer sent a copy of this 
letter to D.N. 
¶17 On June 24 and July 10, 2008, Attorney Duplessie sent 
additional letters to Attorney Erspamer regarding the language 
of the MSA and the need for updated medical releases.  Attorney 
Erspamer did not respond to the letters. 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
9 
 
¶18 On July 14, 2008, D.N. wrote a letter to Attorney 
Erspamer asking about the status of her case.  Attorney Erspamer 
did not respond to this communication from his client. 
¶19 On August 18, 2008, Attorney Duplessie wrote a letter 
to Attorney Erspamer requesting that he obtain D.N.'s signature 
on new release forms.  D.N. obtained a copy of this letter.  She 
forwarded a copy of the letter to Attorney Erspamer with a note 
asking for his advice regarding what she should do.  Attorney 
Erspamer again did not respond. 
¶20 In September and October 2008 Attorney Duplessie wrote 
additional letters to Attorney Erspamer.  Those letters inquired 
whether Attorney Erspamer was still representing D.N.  They also 
asked about the status of the MSA and of the updated release 
forms.  Attorney Erspamer still did not respond. 
¶21 Throughout the fall of 2008, D.N. made repeated 
attempts to contact Attorney Erspamer by either stopping at his 
law office or making telephone calls.  She never received any 
response.  Finally, on January 30, 2009, D.N. was able to reach 
Attorney Erspamer on his home telephone.  He told her during 
that telephone call that he was sending a letter to Attorney 
Duplessie in order to finish the MSA. 
¶22 Attorney Erspamer, however, did not send any letter to 
Attorney Duplessie until April 22, 2009.  In that letter, 
Attorney Erspamer requested a copy of the MSA documents.  Thus, 
with the exception of the January 30, 2009, telephone call with 
D.N., Attorney Erspamer did not have any contact with his client 
or with opposing counsel for approximately ten months. 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
10 
 
¶23 On May 5, 2009, Attorney Erspamer sent a letter to 
D.N.  In the letter he stated that he had not received a 
response from Attorney Duplessie to his April 22, 2009, letter.  
Attorney Erspamer advised D.N. that if she wished to pursue the 
completion of the MSA, she should retain a different attorney 
due to the fact that she had filed a grievance against him. 
¶24 D.N. believed that the fee received by Attorney 
Erspamer required him to complete the MSA on her behalf.  
Attorney 
Erspamer 
told 
the 
special 
investigator 
that 
he 
considered his work to have been completed when the compromise 
agreement was executed and approved in early 2007.  He 
acknowledged, however, that he had continued for some time after 
the completion of the compromise agreement to communicate with 
both Attorney Duplessie and D.N. about the MSA because he felt 
he had a duty to do so.  He also acknowledged that in other 
worker's compensation cases, he had pursued a new claim or a 
claim of bad faith on a client's behalf when a MSA was not 
completed.  Attorney Erspamer did not discuss any such option 
with D.N. 
¶25 In his communications with the special investigator, 
Attorney Erspamer admitted that shortly after June 2008 his 
office telephone had been disconnected and thereafter he had 
simply closed his law office.  He never informed D.N. of these 
facts nor did he inform her how she could reach him after those 
events. 
¶26 On the basis of these findings of fact, the referee 
concluded that the LRS had proven two counts of professional 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
11 
 
misconduct related to Attorney Erspamer's representation of D.N.  
First, by failing to provide timely representation to complete 
the MSA, Attorney Erspamer had failed to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.5  Second, 
Attorney Erspamer had violated SCR 20:1.46 by failing to keep his 
client reasonably informed about the status of her legal matter. 
¶27 The final three counts of the second amended complaint 
related to Attorney Erspamer's representation of R.H. and the 
investigation of R.H.'s grievance. 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.3 states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
6 SCR 20:1.4 provides as follows: 
(a) A lawyer shall: 
(1) Promptly inform the client of any decision or 
circumstance with respect to which the client's 
informed consent, as defined in SCR 20:1.0(f), is 
required by these rules;  
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the 
means by which the client's objectives are to be 
accomplished; 
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter;  
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information; and 
(5) consult with the client about any relevant 
limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer 
knows that the client expects assistance not permitted 
by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. 
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation. 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
12 
 
¶28 R.H. entered into a written retainer agreement with 
Attorney Erspamer in October 2007 to pursue an appeal of a 
denial of social security benefits.  R.H. met with Attorney 
Erspamer on only two occasions.  He attempted to telephone 
Attorney Erspamer's law office on multiple occasions, but never 
was able to reach Attorney Erspamer.  He subsequently learned 
that 
the 
telephone 
number for the law office had been 
disconnected.  R.H. also tried repeatedly to reach Attorney 
Erspamer at his home telephone number, but no one ever answered 
the telephone.   
¶29 R.H. filed a grievance against Attorney Erspamer in 
April 2009.  At that point he had not heard from Attorney 
Erspamer for approximately one year.  After learning that R.H. 
had filed a grievance and was seeking the return of his file and 
records, Attorney Erspamer did return the file to R.H. 
¶30 According to R.H., his review of the records indicated 
that Attorney Erspamer had not done any significant work on the 
matter.  R.H. was able to retain new counsel to pursue the 
appeal. 
¶31 In September 2009 Investigator Rosen wrote a letter 
asking Attorney Erspamer to contact him at his office so that 
they could discuss the R.H. grievance.  Instead of a telephone 
call, Investigator Rosen received a letter from Attorney 
Erspamer that stated Attorney Erspamer wished to communicate by 
letter.  Attorney Erspamer further stated that he had never 
received a request from R.H. for the return of his file until 
the grievance had been submitted. 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
13 
 
¶32 Because 
of 
information 
he 
learned 
during 
the 
investigation, Investigator Rosen became concerned with Attorney 
Erspamer's mental health and determined that it was necessary 
for him to communicate with him orally to assess the situation.  
He responded to Attorney Erspamer's letter with his own letter 
informing Attorney Erspamer that it was imperative that Attorney 
Erspamer contact him so that they could discuss the R.H. matter.  
After receiving no response, Investigator Rosen sent another 
letter on October 30, 2009.  This letter expressly directed 
Attorney Erspamer to contact Investigator Rosen by telephone on 
a particular date and time.  The letter advised Attorney 
Erspamer that he could place the call collect. 
¶33 Attorney 
Erspamer 
did 
not 
telephone 
Investigator 
Rosen.  On the date of the scheduled telephone conference, 
Investigator Rosen received a letter from Attorney Erspamer 
indicating that he would be happy to answer all of Investigator 
Rosen's questions in writing. 
¶34 Investigator Rosen then sent another letter in reply 
declining to conduct their interview in writing.  He again 
directed Attorney Erspamer to telephone him collect on a 
specified date and time.  Investigator Rosen advised Attorney 
Erspamer that if he was unable or unwilling to speak on the 
telephone about the R.H. matter, Attorney Erspamer was required 
to submit one week prior to the scheduled telephone conference 
any and all information that provided a basis for his inability 
to discuss the matter orally. 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
14 
 
¶35 On 
the 
date 
of 
the 
second 
scheduled 
telephone 
conference, Investigator Rosen received another letter from 
Attorney Erspamer.  The letter stated that Attorney Erspamer 
would communicate with Investigator Rosen only by letter.  It 
failed to provide any information that would provide a basis as 
to why Attorney Erspamer was unable to discuss the matter 
orally. 
¶36 The referee concluded that these facts regarding the 
R.H. matter and the ensuing investigation demonstrated that 
Attorney Erspamer had engaged in three counts of professional 
misconduct.  First, by failing to provide timely representation 
to R.H., Attorney Erspamer had violated SCR 20:1.3.  Second, 
Attorney Erspamer's failure to communicate with his client for 
nearly a year regarding his legal matter constituted a violation 
of SCR 20:1.4.  Finally, the referee concluded that Attorney 
Erspamer had violated SCR 21.15(4)7 by repeatedly refusing to 
speak with Investigator Rosen on the telephone as directed. 
¶37 The referee began his discussion of an appropriate 
resolution by noting a number of mitigating and aggravating 
factors.  On the mitigation side of the ledger, the referee 
                                                 
7 SCR 21.15(4) states: 
Every attorney shall cooperate with the office of 
lawyer regulation in the investigation, prosecution 
and disposition of grievances, complaints filed with 
or by the director, and petitions for reinstatement.  
An attorney's wilful failure to cooperate with the 
office of lawyer regulation constitutes violation of 
the rules of professional conduct for attorneys. 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
15 
 
pointed to the fact that Attorney Erspamer had been in private 
practice for approximately 26 years with no prior disciplinary 
history and a reputation of being well respected, as shown by 
his appointment to the district committee.  He also noted that 
the facts of the two representations did not involve moral 
turpitude, dishonesty, or a violation of the attorney's oath. 
¶38 The referee stated that aggravating factors included 
Attorney Erspamer's abrupt closing of his law practice without 
giving notice to his clients or providing them with a means to 
contact him telephonically.  He further stated Attorney Erspamer 
appeared to have essentially abandoned work in progress for 
current clients.  Moreover, he failed to cooperate with the 
special investigators as requested. 
¶39 For all of the reasons cited by Investigator Rosen in 
his testimony at the default hearing, the referee agreed with 
him that it appeared that there were mental health issues 
involved in this situation. 
¶40 The 
referee 
ultimately 
recommended 
that 
Attorney 
Erspamer's license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 
a period of 60 days and that he be required to pay the costs of 
this proceeding.  He also recommended that a number of 
conditions 
be 
imposed 
on 
the 
reinstatement 
of 
Attorney 
Erspamer's license and his practice of law after reinstatement.  
The referee recommended that in order for Attorney Erspamer to 
have his license reinstated, he should be obligated to (1) 
provide the OLR with the name, address, and telephone number of 
a psychiatrist who had already agreed to meet with him and 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
16 
 
evaluate him; (2) execute a release waiving his patient/doctor 
privilege; (3) provide the OLR with the psychiatrist's initial 
evaluation report, which would include a diagnosis, a prognosis, 
and a treatment protocol; (4) commence the treatment plan with 
the psychiatrist; and (5) achieve stabilization, as indicated by 
the psychiatrist stating that Attorney Erspamer does not pose a 
danger to himself or to the public and that he can function as 
an attorney, or be discharged from treatment after having 
successfully completed it.  In addition, the referee recommended 
that, even if reinstatement occurs, Attorney Erspamer should be 
required to continue in treatment until discharged by the 
psychiatrist and to provide the OLR with each and every 
treatment note and the treatment discharge summary as they are 
prepared. 
¶41 In light of the concerns raised by Investigator 
Rosen's testimony and the referee's report, as well as the lack 
of any explanation in the record as to why Attorney Erspamer had 
abruptly closed his office, had apparently withdrawn from 
contact with his family and others, and had refused to have any 
oral communication with Investigator Rosen, on January 12, 2011, 
we issued an order directing Attorney Erspamer to show cause why 
his license should not be temporarily suspended for willful 
failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation.  The 
order also directed Investigator Rosen to make additional 
attempts to contact Attorney Erspamer and others for the purpose 
of determining the reasons for his conduct.  Investigator Rosen 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
17 
 
was required to file a written report regarding the results of 
his efforts. 
¶42 Attorney 
Erspamer 
did 
file 
a 
response 
to 
the 
January 12, 2011, order.  His response asserted that since the 
date of the order he had spoken twice with Investigator Rosen 
over the telephone.  He contended that he had answered every 
question posed by the special investigator and had provided all 
of the requested documentation.  He disputed that he had ever 
failed to cooperate with the investigation, stating that he had 
indicated to Investigator Rosen his willingness to answer any 
question in writing.  He stated he had requested written 
communications in order to avoid confusion and to create a 
record of the contents of the communications. 
¶43 Investigator Rosen submitted his supplemental report 
on March 9, 2011.  He reported that he had spoken with Attorney 
Erspamer by telephone on two occasions at the end of January 
2011.  Attorney Erspamer asserted in those conversations that 
because of financial hardship his office telephone service had 
been disconnected in late 2008 and that he had moved out of his 
law office in 2009 because the building, which he owned, was in 
foreclosure.  With respect to the reason why Attorney Erspamer 
had refused to communicate orally with Investigator Rosen during 
the initial investigation of the R.H. grievance, Attorney 
Erspamer stated that he did not believe he was obligated to do 
so.  He said that prior investigations had been done by letter 
and he could not understand why this one would be different.   
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
18 
 
¶44 Investigator 
Rosen's 
supplemental 
report 
also 
addressed Attorney Erspamer's statements regarding the R.H. 
representation.  Attorney Erspamer told Investigator Rosen that 
the Social Security Administration (SSA) had always sent him a 
list of pending cases that he was handling and that the R.H. 
appeal 
had 
inadvertently 
been 
omitted 
from 
that 
list.  
Investigator Rosen reported that the documents corroborated this 
assertion.  Because the R.H. appeal was not on the list provided 
by the SSA, Attorney Erspamer said that he had inadvertently 
neglected to tend to the closing of that matter before he closed 
his law office.  Attorney Erspamer asserted that he first 
learned that R.H. wanted his file returned on May 5, 2009, and 
that he immediately sent the file to R.H. that same day.  
Attorney Erspamer also said that he had signed a letter waiving 
any fee to which he might be entitled in the matter. 
¶45 With 
respect 
to 
Attorney 
Erspamer's 
ability 
to 
function as an attorney, Investigator Rosen reported that in the 
two telephone conversations Attorney Erspamer had been coherent 
in his answers to Investigator Rosen's questions and had 
demonstrated a remarkable recollection of the dates of letters 
and activities in the R.H. representation.  Investigator Rosen 
said that he now had no question in his mind that, if Attorney 
Erspamer could address the administrative suspensions relating 
to CLE and bar dues, he would be competent to practice law.  
Investigator Rosen concluded that a number of personal and 
financial difficulties had caused great distress to Attorney 
Erspamer around the time of the initial investigation, which was 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
19 
 
probably a factor in Attorney Erspamer's unusual responses to 
Investigator Rosen's requests to communicate orally and not in 
writing. 
¶46 Not only did Investigator Rosen in his supplemental 
report comment on what he understood to be the reasons for 
Attorney Erspamer's conduct, as requested in this court's order, 
but he also took the additional step of offering a re-evaluation 
of the three counts relating to the R.H. representation.  He 
said that based on his discussions with Attorney Erspamer and 
his understanding of Attorney Erspamer's situation at the time 
of the R.H. representation, it was now his opinion that Attorney 
Erspamer had not violated either SCR 20:1.3 or SCR 20:1.4.  He 
pointed to the fact that Attorney Erspamer had been in the 
process of closing his office and that the R.H. appeal had been 
inadvertently omitted from the list of pending cases provided by 
the SSA.  Moreover, he stated that, considering all the 
circumstances surrounding Attorney Erspamer at the time of his 
initial investigation, he now concluded Attorney Erspamer's 
refusal to communicate orally with him was understandable and 
not a violation of the rules.  Investigator Rosen concluded his 
evaluation by moving to dismiss the three counts related to the 
R.H. representation and subsequent investigation. 
¶47 Given the fact that Investigator Rosen's supplemental 
report was in stark contrast to his prior testimony and the 
referee's findings of fact, plus his unusual request to dismiss 
a number of counts after the filing of a referee's report and 
recommendation, we directed the other special investigator, 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
20 
 
Deborah Smith, to respond to Investigator Rosen's supplemental 
report.   
¶48 Investigator 
Smith's 
response 
differed 
from 
Investigator Rosen's supplemental report in multiple ways.  
Investigator Smith disputed that Attorney Erspamer's financial 
difficulties and the closing of his law office had caused his 
failure to complete the D.N. representation or his failure to 
maintain communication with the client.  Investigator Smith 
noted that when she had spoken with Attorney Erspamer during her 
investigation of the D.N. representation, Attorney Erspamer had 
never made any such claim to her. 
¶49 Investigator Smith expressed her opinion that the 
counts relating to the D.N. representation remained valid and 
continued to warrant discipline.  She further stated that she 
agreed with the referee's comments about the presence of mental 
health issues and thought that Attorney Erspamer's conduct of 
abruptly closing his law office, cutting himself off from his 
family and friends, and withdrawing into his house spoke for 
itself and demonstrated the need for a mental health evaluation.  
Her response also discussed some information she had gained from 
her conversations with Attorney Erspamer's family indicating 
that Attorney Erspamer had been experiencing mental health 
problems for some time.  She acknowledged that this information 
had not previously been made a part of the record before the 
referee.  She concluded that, whether or not due to the stress 
of his legal practice or personal life, Attorney Erspamer had 
dropped 
the 
ball 
on 
the 
D.N. 
representation 
because 
of 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
21 
 
difficulties in functioning as a practicing lawyer caused by his 
mental health problems.8 
¶50 Attorney Erspamer was expressly authorized by this 
court's orders to submit replies to the supplemental reports 
filed by Investigator Rosen and Investigator Smith.  He did not 
object to those reports nor did he file any replies to them.  
Given the lack of any objection, we conclude we may rely on the 
contents of those reports in evaluating the discipline and 
conditions to be imposed. 
¶51 We now turn to our review of the referee's report and 
recommendation and our consideration of the response of Attorney 
Erspamer to the order to show cause and the supplemental reports 
of the special investigators.  When reviewing a referee's 
report, we affirm a referee's findings of fact unless they are 
found to be clearly erroneous, but we review the referee's 
conclusions of law on a de novo basis.  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 given the particular facts of each case, independent 
of the referee's recommendation, but benefiting from it.  In re 
                                                 
8 The 
supplemental 
reports 
by 
Investigator 
Rosen 
and 
Investigator Smith have been filed and maintained under seal 
because they discuss specific information regarding Attorney 
Erspamer's mental health.  We have included some general 
information from those supplemental reports in this opinion to 
the extent necessary to explain the context of our review and 
the reasons for our disposition of this disciplinary proceeding. 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
22 
 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶52 The referee's findings of fact were made on the basis 
of the allegations in the complaint due to Attorney Erspamer's 
default.  There has been no appeal from those findings.  In 
addition, 
while 
Investigator 
Rosen's 
supplemental 
report 
provides some additional explanation for some of those facts, it 
does not undermine those factual findings.  We therefore adopt 
the referee's findings of fact as made. 
¶53 We further determine that those findings of fact 
support the legal conclusion that Attorney Erspamer engaged in 
each of the five counts of professional misconduct alleged in 
the complaint.  The facts clearly demonstrate that Attorney 
Erspamer stopped working on both the D.N. and R.H. matters and 
failed to move them forward with diligence toward completion.  
He also failed to have any communication with those clients for 
long periods of time, leaving them in the dark as to the status 
of their legal matters despite their repeated attempts to obtain 
information.  Finally, the factual findings establish that 
Attorney Erspamer deliberately refused to communicate orally 
with the special investigator after the investigator had 
informed him that an oral conversation was imperative to allow 
the 
investigator 
to 
obtain 
a 
full 
understanding 
of 
the 
situation.  This is a willful failure to cooperate with a 
grievance investigation, in violation of SCR 21.15(4).  If 
Attorney Erspamer had spoken with Investigator Rosen initially 
when asked to do so, we may have been able to avoid the need for 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
23 
 
ordering supplemental reports and the corresponding delay in 
concluding this proceeding. 
¶54 We next consider Investigator Rosen's supplemental 
report and motion to dismiss the three counts relating to the 
R.H. representation and ensuing investigation.  Setting to the 
side the question of whether a special investigator may file a 
motion on his or her own behalf when represented by counsel and 
the question of whether a special investigator may move for 
dismissal of some counts after the referee has issued his/her 
report and recommendation, we conclude that the information set 
forth in Investigator Rosen's supplemental report substantively 
does not merit the dismissal of any counts.  The information in 
the report does not change the facts as found by the referee.  
The report does not challenge the fact that Attorney Erspamer 
stopped doing work on the R.H. appeal and never notified his 
client of that fact.  Moreover, the fact that the R.H. appeal 
did not show up on a SSA list of pending cases does not mean 
that Attorney Erspamer did not display a lack of diligence.  
Whether or not the R.H. appeal was inadvertently omitted from 
the 
SSA's 
list, 
Attorney 
Erspamer 
should 
have 
known 
independently that he was handling R.H.'s appeal and needed to 
either complete the appeal or make arrangements to withdraw from 
the representation so that R.H. could find successor counsel.  
Moreover, the fact that Attorney Erspamer may have been 
experiencing some personal and financial difficulties does not 
excuse the fact that he failed to have any communication with 
his client for approximately one year about a pending matter.  
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
24 
 
Such difficulties also do not excuse Attorney Erspamer's willful 
disobedience of a proper request from a person investigating a 
grievance against him.  Consequently, we deny Investigator 
Rosen's motion to dismiss Counts 3 through 5 of the second 
amended complaint.9 
¶55 We now turn to the issues of the proper level of 
discipline and the possible imposition of conditions on the 
reinstatement of Attorney Erspamer's license.  We recognize that 
the resolution of these issues is impacted by the existence of 
facts that suggest the presence of mental health problems.  We 
are sensitive to discussing an attorney's personal health 
information unnecessarily, but we are also cognitive of the fact 
that one of the responsibilities we have in the area of lawyer 
regulation and one of the objectives of imposing discipline is 
to protect the public.  See Preamble to SCR ch. 21 ("The lawyer 
regulation system is established to carry out the supreme 
court's constitutional responsibility to supervise the practice 
of law and protect the public from misconduct by persons 
practicing law in Wisconsin."); see also In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Woods, 2008 WI 79, ¶22, 311 Wis. 2d 213, 751 
                                                 
9 Given that Attorney Erspamer did communicate orally with 
Investigator Rosen following our January 12, 2011, order, we do 
not impose an ongoing temporary suspension for willful failure 
to cooperate under SCR 22.03(4).  We proceed to a final decision 
on review of the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of 
law, including the referee's conclusion that Attorney Erspamer 
violated SCR 21.15(4) by failing to communicate orally with 
Investigator 
Rosen 
when 
he 
was 
conducting 
his 
initial 
investigation of the R.H. grievance. 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
25 
 
N.W.2d 840 (one consideration in imposing discipline is the need 
to protect the public, the courts, and the legal system from a 
repetition of the misconduct).  We are somewhat limited in this 
case by the fact that while there are questions about Attorney 
Erspamer's mental health in the record, there is only a limited 
amount of information on that subject and no hard medical 
evidence. 
¶56 Having considered the seriousness of the misconduct, 
the need to protect the public and the legal system from a 
reoccurrence, the need to impress upon Attorney Erspamer the 
seriousness of the misconduct, and the need to deter other 
attorneys from committing similar misconduct, we conclude, as 
did the referee, that a 60-day suspension of Attorney Erspamer's 
license to practice law is an appropriate level of discipline.   
¶57 We also determine that some conditions must be imposed 
on the reinstatement of Attorney Erspamer's license in order to 
ensure that Attorney Erspamer is prepared to handle the rigors 
of a law practice once again and that other clients will not 
experience what D.N. and R.H. did.  Although there is no 
definitive proof that Attorney Erspamer's misconduct was a 
result of mental health or other problems, there are enough 
warning signs in this matter that we determine he must be 
required to undergo mental health and alcohol or other drug 
abuse (AODA) evaluations and to provide copies of those 
evaluations to the OLR before his license can be reinstated.  We 
further conclude that as a condition of reinstatement Attorney 
Erspamer must be required to execute medical record releases 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
26 
 
authorizing the OLR to review his medical records for a period 
of two years.10  Once Attorney Erspamer has complied with these 
conditions and the other conditions generally required for 
reinstatement after a suspension of less than six months, his 
license can be reinstated. 
¶58 We do not require at this juncture as a condition of 
reinstatement or continued practice of law that Attorney 
Erspamer prove he is following a psychiatrist's treatment plan.  
Although that might be a possible course of action, we note at 
this point it has not been proven that Attorney Erspamer was or 
is suffering from mental health issues.  Our rules contain a 
procedure for assessing whether an attorney is incapable of 
practicing law due to some form of medical incapacity.  That 
process has not begun here, much less concluded.  We believe 
that process should be used for Attorney Erspamer's situation, 
just as it would be for any other attorney. 
¶59 Requiring Attorney Erspamer to undergo evaluations and 
allowing the OLR to review his medical records will enable the 
OLR to determine whether there is a reason to conduct a full 
medical incapacity investigation and to initiate a formal 
                                                 
10 Although this disciplinary proceeding was brought on 
behalf of the LRS by special investigators, we are directing the 
OLR to receive the specified documents and to determine whether 
to proceed with a possible medical incapacity investigation and 
proceeding because the rules relating to medical incapacity, 
unlike the rules for disciplinary proceedings, do not contain 
any reference to the appointment of a special investigator.  
Compare SCRs 22.34-22.36 (medical incapacity procedures) with 
SCR 22.25 (procedures for allegations of misconduct against a 
participant in the lawyer regulation system).  
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
27 
 
proceeding to suspend Attorney Erspamer's license due to medical 
incapacity.  Moreover, the OLR need not wait until the 
completion of a medical incapacity proceeding to seek a medical 
incapacity suspension.  If the OLR determines from its analysis 
of the evaluations and Attorney Erspamer's medical records that 
his practice of law would pose a risk to the interests of the 
public and the administration of justice, it may move the court 
for an immediate temporary suspension such as is authorized 
under SCR 22.21. 
¶60 We do not impose these conditions lightly.  We 
recognize that Attorney Erspamer has been a respected and 
productive attorney in this state for many years.  Given the 
facts presented in this record, we conclude that the conditions 
and procedures described above conform most closely to our rules 
and provide adequate protection for the public while being fair 
to Attorney Erspamer.  
¶61 Finally, we determine that Attorney Erspamer should be 
required to pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding.  
If he is currently experiencing financial difficulties that 
limit his ability to pay those costs, he can make arrangements 
with the OLR for a payment plan. 
¶62 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michael O. Erspamer 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 
days, effective as of the date of this order. 
¶63 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, 
Michael O. Erspamer shall take the following actions:  (1) 
No. 
2010AP112-D   
 
28 
 
undergo a mental health evaluation and an alcohol and other drug 
abuse (AODA) evaluation, (2) provide copies of these evaluations 
to the Office of Lawyer Regulation, and (3) execute medical 
record releases authorizing the Office of Lawyer Regulation for 
a period of two years to review his medical and mental health 
records and to speak with medical or mental health providers. 
¶64 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Michael O. Erspamer shall 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 those costs within that time, 
the license of Michael O. Erspamer to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of this court. 
¶65 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
already done so, Michael O. Erspamer shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
 
No.  2010AP112-D.pdr 
 
1 
 
 
¶66 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J.   (concurring in part; 
dissenting in part).  I concur with the majority’s conclusions 
that Attorney Erspamer violated the Rules of Professional 
Conduct, that his license should be suspended for 60 days, and 
that he should be required to pay full costs.  I dissent, 
however, from the conditions imposed upon reinstatement, as 
there is no factual record in this proceeding that warrants such 
a heavy intrusion into Attorney Erspamer's confidential health 
care information and choices as is required by the waiver of 
confidentiality and the mental health evaluation. 
 
 
No.  2010AP112-D.pdr 
 
 
 
1