Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. M. Joanne Wolf
Citation: 2001 WI 4
Docket Number: 2000AP002918-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 6, 2001

2001 WI 4 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
00-2918-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against M. Joanne Wolf, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
M. Joanne Wolf,  
 
Respondent.  
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WOLF 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
February 6, 2001 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
2001 WI 4 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 00-2918-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against M. Joanne Wolf, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board  
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
M. Joanne Wolf,  
 
          Respondent.  
 
FILED 
 
FEB 6, 2001 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the comprehensive stipulation 
filed by Attorney M. Joanne Wolf and the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.12.1  The stipulation sets 
                     
1  Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process was substantially restructured.  The name 
of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases 
involving attorney misconduct was changed from the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) and the Supreme Court rules applicable to the 
lawyer regulation system were also revised in part.  Although 
the conduct underlying this case occurred prior to October 1, 
2000, the parties' stipulation was filed after that date 
pursuant to newly enacted SCR 22.12 which provides, in part: 
No. 
00-2918-D 
 
2 
forth findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning Attorney 
Wolf's professional misconduct including neglecting a case, 
making misrepresentations to both her client and the clerk of 
court's office, and altering a public document both fraudulently 
and criminally; all the stipulated misconduct occurred while 
Attorney Wolf was representing a client at the time when Attorney 
Wolf's law license remained under suspension for more than six 
years for her failure to pay bar dues.  The parties also 
stipulated to a two-year suspension of Attorney Wolf's license to 
practice law as discipline for this misconduct.   
¶2 
We approve the stipulation and determine that the 
seriousness of Attorney Wolf's misconduct warrants the suspension 
of her license to practice law for two years.   
¶3 
Attorney Wolf was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1980.  She previously served as district attorney in 
Crawford county and she currently resides in Prairie du Chien.  
In 1991 this court imposed medical conditions on Attorney Wolf's 
license.  Disciplinary Proceedings Against Wolf, 165 Wis. 2d 1, 
                                                                  
SCR 22.12  Stipulation. 
(1)  The director may file with the complaint a stipulation 
of the director [of OLR] and the respondent to the facts, 
conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and  discipline to be 
imposed.  The supreme court may consider the complaint and 
stipulation without the appointment of a referee.   
All references to Supreme Court rules in this opinion will 
be to those now in effect since October 1, 2000, except as 
specifically noted.   
No. 
00-2918-D 
 
3 
476 N.W.2d 878 (1991).  Attorney Wolf was thereafter suspended 
from the practice of law for nonpayment of bar dues, effective 
November 2, 1992, and has remained under suspension since that 
date.   
¶4 
The 
specific 
facts 
giving 
rise 
to 
this 
current 
disciplinary action reflect that Attorney Wolf was retained in 
July 1997 to represent a client in a divorce action.  That client 
and her husband had been separated for many years and the 
husband's whereabouts were unknown. Attorney Wolf was told by the 
client that she planned to marry her fiancé on May 16, 1998, and 
she said she wanted to be certain that her divorce would be 
completed quickly enough so that it would not interfere with 
those plans.  Attorney Wolf informed the client that she could 
not remarry until six months after the effective date of the 
divorce, and thus, the divorce would need to be final by mid-
November 1997.   
¶5 
Attorney Wolf subsequently informed her client that the 
final hearing in the divorce action had been scheduled for 
November of 1997; later, Attorney Wolf reported that the hearing 
date had to be postponed. When the client expressed concern about 
the 
mandatory 
six-month 
waiting 
period 
before 
remarrying, 
Attorney Wolf said she would get the final hearing rescheduled 
and would ask the judge to waive the six-month requirement.  In 
fact, Attorney Wolf had not at that time filed the divorce 
petition and did not do so until March 31, 1998.  
No. 
00-2918-D 
 
4 
¶6 
On April 29, 1998, the circuit court granted Attorney 
Wolf's client a default divorce subject to submission of proof 
that the client's husband had been properly served with the 
divorce petition by publication.  The judge reminded Attorney 
Wolf's client that she could not remarry until six months after 
the date of the divorce.  When the client later expressed concern 
to Attorney Wolf about that warning, Attorney Wolf responded that 
she would have the judge backdate the divorce judgment.   
¶7 
On May 4, 1998, the client went to Attorney Wolf's 
office and requested and received a copy of the findings of fact, 
conclusions of law and judgment of divorce that Attorney Wolf had 
filed with the Crawford county clerk of court's office on that 
date.  That document bore an incorrect case number and reflected 
that the divorce judgment had been granted on October 29, 1997.  
The document was imprinted with the stamp of the Crawford county 
clerk of court's office showing that it had been filed on May 4, 
1998, and it appeared to have been signed by the judge on that 
same date.   
¶8 
Attorney Wolf assured her client that the document had 
been approved by the judge and that it would be sufficient for 
the client to obtain a marriage license.  Attorney Wolf, however, 
also instructed her client to destroy the document after the 
marriage license had been issued; in addition Attorney Wolf told 
her client that she would soon receive in the mail, a certified 
copy of the divorce judgment with the correct date on it.   
No. 
00-2918-D 
 
5 
¶9 
The circuit court judge had not, in fact, approved the 
use of the incorrect date on the divorce judgment Attorney Wolf 
had given her client.  
¶10 On May 8, 1998, the client took the copy of the divorce 
judgment she had received from Attorney Wolf to the county 
clerk's office to apply for a marriage license.  When the client 
returned after the five-day waiting period to pick up the 
license, she was informed by the clerk that a marriage license 
could not be issued because the copy of the divorce judgment that 
had been submitted bore a date different from that on the divorce 
judgment on file in the clerk's office.   
¶11 On that same daynow only two days from the planned 
weddingthe client told Attorney Wolf that the marriage license 
could not be issued because the six-month waiting period had not 
yet expired.  Attorney Wolf reassured the client that Attorney 
Wolf would take care of the problem.  The next morning, Attorney 
Wolf went to the Crawford county clerk of court's office and 
attempted to persuade a deputy clerk to sign a statement to the 
effect that a divorce judgment is granted on the date of the 
hearing and entered on the date of the filing.  The deputy clerk 
of court declined to sign that statement. 
¶12 Attorney Wolf then went to the office of the county 
clerk with the purported divorce judgment bearing the incorrect 
date and presented it to a deputy county clerk.  When the deputy 
clerk noted that the dates did not correspond to the dates shown 
No. 
00-2918-D 
 
6 
in the file in the clerk of court's office, Attorney Wolf 
represented that the divorce had, in fact, been granted on 
October 29, 1997; Attorney Wolf stated that she would straighten 
the matter out with the clerk of court's office.  The deputy 
county clerk then issued the marriage license and gave it to 
Attorney Wolf who delivered it to her client. 
¶13 Later that afternoon, as the client and her fiancé were 
on the way to their wedding rehearsal, they were contacted by the 
police who informed them that the marriage license that had been 
issued was not valid.  As a result, Attorney Wolf's client was 
unable to legally marry as she had planned on May 16, 1998, 
although the couple did participate in a non-binding ceremony and 
held the reception as planned.  
¶14 Subsequently, Attorney Wolf's client discovered that as 
of May 16, 1998, there was no valid judgment of divorce because 
Attorney Wolf had not allowed for sufficient time between the 
date of publication and the date of the final hearing.  Attorney 
Wolf's client later retained different counsel and then obtained 
a valid divorce.  The client and her fiancé were finally married 
in March of 2000. 
¶15 Based on her actions in this divorce case, Attorney 
Wolf was convicted on June 16, 1999, on one count of altering a 
public record with intent to defraud, contrary to Wis. Stat. 
§ 943.38(1)(b), a Class C felony.  Sentence was withheld and she 
was placed 
on probation 
for four 
years conditioned 
upon 
No. 
00-2918-D 
 
7 
performance of 250 hours of community service and the payment of 
restitution.  A restitution order was subsequently entered 
requiring Attorney Wolf to make restitution in the amount of 
$4000 directly to her former client. 
¶16 Based 
on 
these 
facts, 
the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility subsequently charged Attorney Wolf 
with five counts of professional misconduct: 
• 
By providing legal representation when her law license 
was under suspension, respondent engaged in the practice 
of law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the 
regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, 
in violation of SCR 20:5.5(a).2  
• 
By failing between July 1997 and March 1998 to file her 
client's petition for divorce, respondent failed to act 
with reasonable diligence in representing her client, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3.3 
• 
By telling her client that a final hearing in the 
divorce action had been scheduled for November 1997 when 
respondent had not filed the divorce petition as of that 
date, and in subsequently misrepresenting to the client 
that respondent had arranged with the circuit court judge 
for a waiver of the mandatory six-month waiting period for 
remarriage, 
respondent 
engaged 
in 
conduct 
involving 
                     
2  SCR 20:5.5(a) provides: 
A lawyer shall not:  
(a)  practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates 
the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction.  
3  SCR 20:1.3 provides:  Diligence  
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
No. 
00-2918-D 
 
8 
dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 
20:8.4(c).4 
• 
By fraudulently altering a public document contrary to 
Wis. Stat. § 943.38(1)(b), a Class C felony, respondent 
committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on her 
honesty and trustworthiness, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(b).5  
• 
By representing to the Crawford county clerk's office 
that the divorce judgment she had fabricated was a genuine 
document, 
respondent 
engaged 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 
20:8.4(c).  
¶17 The Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility 
voted to seek a two-year suspension of Attorney Wolf's law 
license for these violations.  The OLR subsequently filed this 
action and now states that this proffered stipulation reflects 
the (former) Board's, the OLR's and Attorney Wolf's desired 
result in this matter.  The parties ask this court therefore to 
approve this stipulation, adopt the stipulated facts and 
conclusions of law, and order a two-year suspension of Ms. 
Wolf's license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
                     
4  SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:  
(c)  engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation.  
5  SCR 20:8.4(b) provides: 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
(b)  commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects.  
 
No. 
00-2918-D 
 
9 
¶18 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
set forth in the parties' stipulation.6  Attorney Wolf's serious 
misconduct warrants a suspension of her license.  The stipulated 
two-year 
suspension 
is 
consistent 
with 
that 
ordered 
in 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Des Jardins, 163 Wis. 2d 969, 
472 N.W.2d 925 (1991), a case, like this, where an attorney had 
altered a court document for the purpose of obtaining a benefit 
for his client.  We believe that under all the circumstances of 
this case, a two-year suspension of Attorney Wolf's license to 
practice law in this state is an appropriate disciplinary 
response to impress on her and members of the bar the seriousness 
of fabricating a court document to gain an improper benefit for a 
client. 
¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the license of M. Joanne Wolf to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two years 
effective as of the date of this order.  
                     
6  The parties assert that this stipulation was not the 
result of a plea agreement and reflects neither a reduction of 
the charge, nor a reduction of the level of discipline 
originally sought by the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility and which the OLR continues to seek in this 
matter.  Furthermore, as the parties request and stipulate, we 
do not appoint a referee in this matter.  SCR 22.12(1).   
No. 
00-2918-D 
 
10
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that M. Joanne Wolf comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.  
 
 
1