Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Crystal L. Saltzwadel
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2022AP000645-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 28, 2022

2022 WI 48 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2022AP645-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Crystal L. Saltzwadel, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Crystal L. Saltzwadel, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SALTZWADEL 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 28, 2022   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam.  
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2022 WI 48
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2022AP645-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Crystal L. Saltzwadel, 
Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
 
Complainant,   
 
 
v. 
 
Crystal L. Saltzwadel,   
 
 
Respondent.   
FILED 
 
JUN 28, 2022 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
and Attorney Crystal L. Saltzwadel have filed a stipulation 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 agreeing that 
Attorney Saltzwadel's license to practice law in Wisconsin 
should be suspended for 60 days for professional misconduct she 
committed in connection with five client matters.  After 
reviewing the matter, we approve the stipulation, adopt the 
stipulated facts and conclusions of law, and impose the 
No. 
2022AP645-D   
 
2 
 
stipulated discipline.  Given the comprehensive stipulation, 
which avoided the need to litigate this matter and to appoint a 
referee, we impose no costs in connection with this proceeding. 
¶2 
Attorney Saltzwadel was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2007.  In February 2020, this court imposed a 
public reprimand upon Attorney Saltzwadel for misconduct in six 
client matters, including her failure to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness; failure to keep clients reasonably 
informed about the status of their cases and respond to requests 
for information; and failure to provide the OLR timely responses 
to 
client 
grievances. 
 
Public 
Reprimand 
of 
Crystal 
L. 
Saltzwadel, 
No. 
2020-3 
(electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/ 
app/raw/003129.html). 
¶3 
On April 18, 2022, the OLR filed another complaint 
against Attorney Saltzwadel alleging 11 counts of misconduct in 
five client matters.  The misconduct in this matter is similar 
to the misconduct that gave rise to her 2020 public reprimand.  
Attorney Saltzwadel failed to file a timely notice of intent to 
pursue postconviction relief (NOI) on behalf of four clients and 
failed to respond to inquiries from the four clients and others 
on their behalf about the status of their cases.  She also 
failed to meaningfully engage with defense counsel in a separate 
federal case who sought to shorten their mutual client's time of 
incarceration and she failed to provide that client with a copy 
of his revocation decision.  
No. 
2022AP645-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
The first two counts of misconduct relate to Attorney 
Saltzwadel's representation of A.W.  In 2019, the Office of the 
State Public Defender (SPD) appointed Attorney Saltzwadel to 
represent A.W. in a criminal case involving one misdemeanor and 
two felonies.  A.W. was found guilty of all charges and was 
sentenced to three years of initial confinement followed by two 
years of extended supervision.  At his sentencing hearing, A.W. 
and Attorney Saltzwadel signed a NOI, indicating that A.W. 
intended to seek postconviction relief. 
¶5 
On March 5, 2020, Attorney Saltzwadel sent A.W. a 
letter stating that she had filed the NOI on his behalf, her 
representation of him had ended, and that the SPD would appoint 
him an appellate attorney.  A.W. did not receive Attorney 
Saltzwadel's letter, possibly because he was moved among 
different correctional facilities.  However, A.W. and his family 
repeatedly tried to contact Attorney Saltzwadel by telephone 
regarding his appeal.  They received no response from her.  
¶6 
Eventually, A.W. filed a grievance with the OLR.  In 
July 2020, the OLR informed Attorney Saltzwadel of the grievance 
and that it appeared no NOI had been filed on A.W.'s behalf.  
Attorney Saltzwadel told the OLR she had filed a NOI and a 
motion for extension of time to file a NOI on A.W.'s behalf.  
However, the copy of the document she provided to the OLR was 
not file stamped by the court. Attorney Saltzwadel said she 
believed she had timely filed the NOI.  That day, Attorney 
Saltzwadel sent a letter to A.W. informing him she would file 
his NOI immediately.  Again, A.W. did not receive Attorney 
No. 
2022AP645-D   
 
4 
 
Saltzwadel's letter; he was still moving among correctional 
facilities. 
¶7 
On August 17, 2020, the SPD received a letter from 
A.W. asking for appointment of appellate counsel for his 
upcoming 
"appeal 
hearing 
filed 
by 
Attorney 
Crystal 
L. 
Saltzwadel."  On August 27, 2020, the SPD advised A.W. that no 
NOI had yet been filed on A.W.'s behalf.  
¶8 
On October 2, 2020, the court of appeals received a 
NOI together with an extension motion filed by Attorney 
Saltzwadel on A.W.'s behalf.  The court granted the motion and 
retroactively extended the deadline, permitting A.W. to file his 
NOI.  However, Attorney Saltzwadel was unable to explain the 
discrepancy between her assertion to the OLR that she had filed 
the NOI on July 7, 2020, and the court's documented receipt of 
the NOI some three months later.   
¶9 
The next count of misconduct pertains to Attorney 
Saltzwadel's representation of S.H.  On March 12, 2019, the SPD 
appointed Attorney Saltzwadel to represent S.H. on two felonies. 
In October 2019, S.H. was found guilty on both felonies, and she 
was later sentenced to ten years of initial confinement followed 
by five years of extended supervision.  At sentencing, S.H. and 
Attorney Saltzwadel signed a NOI, which indicated S.H.'s intent 
to seek postconviction relief.  
¶10 After sentencing, S.H. and her mother contacted 
Attorney Saltzwadel to confirm that a NOI had been filed.  
Attorney Saltzwadel claimed that a NOI had been filed and that 
S.H. would hear from her appellate counsel within 60 days. 
No. 
2022AP645-D   
 
5 
 
¶11 In January 2020, S.H. learned the NOI had not been 
filed. On January 10, 2020, Attorney Saltzwadel received an 
email from a supervisor at the SPD who informed Attorney 
Saltzwadel that S.H. and her family had been inquiring about 
appellate counsel but it appeared no NOI had been filed.  The 
SPD urged Attorney Saltzwadel to file the NOI immediately.  
Attorney Saltzwadel took no steps to file a NOI for S.H. after 
receiving this email.  
¶12 On January 28, 2020, Attorney Saltzwadel received a 
follow-up email from the SPD.  Shortly thereafter, another 
attorney with the SPD filed the NOI, along with a motion to 
extend the deadline for S.H. to file an appeal.  Later that same 
day, Attorney Saltzwadel emailed the SPD and claimed she did not 
know what had happened to the NOI and that she had a printed 
copy in her file. Attorney Saltzwadel also sent a letter to 
S.H., stating that she had believed S.H.'s NOI was filed the day 
of the sentencing hearing, but she had learned this was not the 
case.1  Attorney Saltzwadel's letter further stated that the NOI 
had now been filed, as well as a motion to extend the deadline 
to file an appeal.  On February 3, 2020, the court of appeals 
retroactively extended the deadline, permitting S.H. to file a 
NOI.   
¶13 S.H. filed a grievance against Attorney Saltzwadel and 
the OLR commenced an inquiry.  Attorney Saltzwadel told the OLR 
that when she returned to her office after S.H.'s sentencing 
                                                 
1 S.H. did not receive Attorney Saltzwadel's letter; it was 
sent to the wrong address for inmate correspondence. 
No. 
2022AP645-D   
 
6 
 
hearing, she signed into the efiling system and uploaded the NOI 
and that she was "unaware that the notice was never submitted."   
¶14 The next allegations of misconduct pertain to Attorney 
Saltzwadel's representation of S.J.  On September 9, 2019, the 
SPD appointed Attorney Saltzwadel to represent S.J. in three 
ongoing criminal cases involving six felonies.  In October 2019, 
S.J. was convicted of five felonies.  S.J. was sentenced to six 
years 
of 
initial 
confinement 
and 
six 
years 
of 
extended 
supervision.  That same day, S.J. and Attorney Saltzwadel signed 
a NOI for each of the three cases, reflecting S.J.'s intent to 
seek postconviction relief. 
¶15 On April 12, 2020, S.J. contacted the SPD's office 
expressing 
concern 
because 
he 
had 
learned 
that 
Attorney 
Saltzwadel had not filed the NOIs and he had received no 
information about his appeal.  S.J. told the SPD that he had 
written to Attorney Saltzwadel but she had not responded. 
¶16 The SPD emailed Attorney Saltzwadel on numerous 
occasions about S.J.  Attorney Saltzwadel told the OLR she 
believed she had electronically filed the NOIs shortly after the 
sentencing hearing, but had no explanation for why they were not 
filed.  She claimed that she would file all three NOIs and that 
she would request extensions of time to file those documents.  
¶17 On June 5, 2020, Attorney Saltzwadel belatedly filed 
all three NOIs on S.J.'s behalf, but failed to request an 
extension of the filing deadline.  On July 22, 2020, another SPD 
attorney filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on S.J.'s 
behalf, alleging that Attorney Saltzwadel was ineffective for 
No. 
2022AP645-D   
 
7 
 
failing to timely file the NOIs on S.J.'s behalf, and thus 
successfully obtained reinstatement of S.J.'s appellate rights. 
¶18 The next client matter in this proceeding involves 
Attorney Saltzwadel's representation of M.J.  On November 13, 
2019, M.J. was convicted of two felonies and one misdemeanor.  
M.J.'s trial counsel withdrew shortly thereafter and Attorney 
Saltzwadel was appointed by the SPD as successor counsel.  After 
sentencing, a NOI was prepared, indicating that M.J. intended to 
seek postconviction relief.  
¶19 In 
May 
2021, 
M.J. 
contacted 
the 
SPD's 
office 
expressing concern because he had learned his NOI had not been 
filed.  M.J. said he had attempted to contact Attorney 
Saltzwadel personally and through third parties, using email and 
voicemails, but she had not responded. 
¶20 In June 2021, the SPD contacted Attorney Saltzwadel 
and informed her that M.J.'s NOI had not been filed.  Attorney 
Saltzwadel said she would need to consult her file to see what 
happened.  In August 2021, after several more follow-up 
inquiries from the SPD, Attorney Saltzwadel replied that she had 
a NOI in her file and did not know why it was not filed with the 
court.  On September 3, 2021, Attorney Saltzwadel told the SPD 
she would file the NOI.  On September 16, 2021, Attorney 
Saltzwadel finally filed a NOI on M.J.'s behalf. 
¶21 On September 20, 2021, another attorney with the SPD 
successfully filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on 
M.J.'s behalf, alleging that Attorney Saltzwadel was ineffective 
No. 
2022AP645-D   
 
8 
 
for failing to timely file the NOI and thus successfully 
obtained reinstatement of M.J.'s appellate rights. 
¶22 Attorney Saltzwadel told the OLR that immediately 
after the sentencing hearing, she told M.J.'s family that the 
NOI had been filed and that M.J. did not have to continue the 
appeal process if he didn't want to.  Attorney Saltzwadel told 
the OLR she was not aware that she had failed to successfully 
file the NOI.  
¶23 The final client matter at issue here involves T.S.Y.  
As pertinent background, in 2011 T.S.Y. had been convicted of a 
felony and sentenced to 30 months of initial confinement 
followed by 48 months of extended supervision.  In 2014, T.S.Y. 
was convicted of another felony and sentenced to nine months of 
confinement to run consecutive to his 2011 sentence.  In January 
2016, T.S.Y. was released from prison and his term of extended 
supervision began.   
¶24 In July 2019, while on extended supervision, T.S.Y. 
was the subject of a traffic stop where he was found to have a 
loaded firearm, drugs, drug paraphernalia, and a large amount of 
cash.  He had not reported for supervision in three years.  The 
SPD appointed Attorney Saltzwadel to represent T.S.Y. on 
criminal charges stemming from the traffic stop and on the 
revocation proceeding regarding his extended supervision.  
¶25 In November 2019, T.S.Y. was indicted on three federal 
criminal charges stemming from the July 2019 traffic stop.  
Federal defense counsel was appointed to represent T.S.Y. in the 
No. 
2022AP645-D   
 
9 
 
federal criminal case.  Pending state criminal charges were 
dismissed on November 13, 2019. 
¶26 On November 6, 2019, T.S.Y.'s revocation hearing was 
held and, by order dated November 20, 2019, T.S.Y.'s extended 
supervision was revoked and he was ordered to be confined for 
three years and six days.  Attorney Saltzwadel was emailed a 
copy of the revocation decision that same day.  T.S.Y. had until 
December 5, 2019 to administratively appeal his revocation. 
¶27 Five days after the revocation hearing, during an 
email exchange with the federal defense attorney, Attorney 
Saltzwadel told the federal defense attorney that she was still 
awaiting T.S.Y.'s revocation decision.  
¶28 On 
December 
2, 
2019, 
T.S.Y. 
made 
his 
initial 
appearance in the federal case.  The next day, his federal 
defense attorney sent Attorney Saltzwadel an email asking that 
she "try to pump the brakes on the revocation decision" because 
the five year minimum sentence from the federal charge would run 
consecutive 
to 
any 
sentence 
imposed 
in 
the 
revocation 
proceeding.  He explained that it was "pretty important to get 
this [federal charge] addressed before the [state] revocation 
decision is issued." 
¶29 Minutes 
after 
receiving 
this 
email, 
Attorney 
Saltzwadel responded, "Decision just came.  Revoked for 2 years 
9 months and 22 days.  We can appeal but that rarely changes 
anything.  I will call the PO to see if there is anything else 
we can do."  However, because Attorney Saltzwadel did not 
disclose that the revocation decision had actually issued on 
No. 
2022AP645-D   
 
10 
 
November 20, 2019, federal defense counsel did not know that 
T.S.Y.'s administrative appeal deadline would expire on December 
5, 2019; he believed there was still time to work something out 
for T.S.Y.'s benefit. 
¶30 On December 5, 2019, federal defense counsel told 
T.S.Y. about his adverse revocation decision.  T.S.Y. had not 
known that his revocation decision had issued some two weeks 
earlier.  He had not received a copy of the decision from 
Attorney Saltzwadel and had heard nothing from her after 
November 13, 2019, despite having left voicemails for her.  
¶31 On December 12, 2019, federal defense counsel sent 
Attorney Saltzwadel the following email: 
I left you a VM.  Please get back to me on this.  I've 
discussed with the federal prosecutor the possibility 
of having [T.S.Y.'s] revocation dropped if he resolves 
this case.  They are open to the idea.  This would be 
a favorable outcome, but seeing that the deadline on 
the administrative appeal is next week Monday or 
Tuesday, time is of the essence.  Please provide me 
with the name and contact info for [T.S.Y.'s] agent. 
Attorney Saltzwadel never responded to this email.  In late 
2020, T.S.Y. entered into a plea agreement in which he was 
convicted of one of the federal charges and the two other 
charges were dismissed.  He was sentenced to nine months in 
prison to run concurrently with the revocation sentence in his 
state criminal matter. 
¶32 During 
the 
ensuing 
OLR 
investigation, 
Attorney 
Saltzwadel told the OLR that she received a copy of the 
revocation decision and promptly mailed a copy to T.S.Y.  She 
No. 
2022AP645-D   
 
11 
 
told the OLR she did not recall receiving any voicemails from 
T.S.Y. or his family. 
¶33 Based on all of the foregoing, the OLR alleged and 
Attorney Saltzwadel has stipulated that: 
 By failing to timely submit notices of intent to pursue 
postconviction relief on behalf of A.W., S.H., S.J., and 
M.J., Attorney Saltzwadel violated SCR 20:1.32 (Counts One, 
Three, Four, and Six). 
 By failing to respond to inquiries from A.W., S.J., M.J., 
T.S.Y., and others on their behalf about the status of 
their 
appeals, 
Attorney 
Saltzwadel 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.4(a)(4)3 (Counts Two, Five, Seven, and Ten). 
 By failing to meaningfully engage with federal defense 
counsel for T.S.Y. in his attempts to shorten T.S.Y.'s time 
of incarceration, Attorney Saltzwadel violated SCR 20:1.3 
(Count Eight).  
 By failing to timely provide T.S.Y. with a copy of his 
revocation 
decision, 
Attorney 
Saltzwadel 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.4(a)(3) (Count Nine).4  
 By telling federal defense counsel on November 25, 2019 
that she was still awaiting T.S.Y.'s revocation decision 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides: "A lawyer shall promptly comply 
with reasonable requests by the client for information." 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides: "A lawyer shall keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
No. 
2022AP645-D   
 
12 
 
and by telling him on December 3, 2019 that the decision 
"just came," Attorney Saltzwadel violated SCR 20:8.4(c) 
(Count Eleven).5 
¶34 On May 9, 2022, the OLR and Attorney Saltzwadel filed 
a stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.12 in which Attorney Saltzwadel 
stipulated to each of the eleven counts set forth in the OLR's 
complaint.  The OLR filed a memorandum in support of the 
stipulation.  
¶35 In the stipulation, Attorney Saltzwadel agrees that 
the facts alleged in the OLR's complaint form a basis for the 
requested discipline.  She represents and verifies that she 
fully understands the ramifications should this court impose the 
stipulated level of discipline; that she fully understands her 
right to contest this matter; that she fully understands her 
right to consult with counsel; that her entry into the 
stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily; and that her 
entry into the stipulation represents her decision not to 
contest the allegations in the complaint or the level and type 
of discipline sought by the OLR's Director.  The parties assert 
that the stipulation was not the result of plea bargaining.  
¶36 The parties ask this court to impose a 60-day 
suspension on Attorney Saltzwadel's law license.  The OLR's 
memorandum in support of the stipulation cites to three cases in 
support of the recommended 60-day suspension.  In In re 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2022AP645-D   
 
13 
 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Theobald, 2010 WI 102, 329 
Wis. 2d 1, 786 N.W.2d 834, we imposed a 60-day suspension for 
two counts of misconduct in one client matter, which included 
failing to take a series of steps resulting in the dismissal of 
the client's bankruptcy petition and failing to respond to the 
client's inquiries regarding the status of the bankruptcy. 
Attorney Theobald's disciplinary history included two prior 
public reprimands for similar misconduct.  In deeming this case 
instructive, the OLR notes that Attorney Saltzwadel also has a 
prior public reprimand and her misconduct is similar to that of 
Attorney Theobald, as it involves failing to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness, failing to keep clients reasonably 
informed about the status of their matters, and failing to 
comply with reasonable request for information.  See also In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moldenhauer, 2016 WI 43, 369 
Wis. 2d 1, 879 N.W.2d 605 (imposing a 60-day suspension for two 
counts 
of 
misconduct 
that 
included 
failing 
to 
act 
with 
reasonable diligence and promptness, failing to keep clients 
reasonably informed about the status of their matters, and 
failing to comply with reasonable requests for information where 
Attorney Moldenhauer had previously received a private reprimand 
and two public reprimands for similar conduct). 
¶37 The OLR also deems instructive In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Anderson, 2020 WI 82, 394 Wis. 2d 190, 950 
N.W.2d 191.  There, the attorney received a 60-day suspension 
for six counts of misconduct in two client matters.  His 
misconduct involved failing to consult with a client about the 
No. 
2022AP645-D   
 
14 
 
means by which objectives were to be accomplished, failing to 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness, failing to keep 
clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters, 
and failing to comply with reasonable requests for information.  
Attorney Anderson had previously received a private reprimand, 
two public reprimands, and a 60-day suspension.  The OLR argues 
that the Anderson case is similar to Attorney Saltzwadel's as it 
involves 
failing 
to 
act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
promptness, failing to keep clients reasonably informed about 
the status of their matters, and failing to comply with 
reasonable requests for information.  
¶38 We have some concerns that a 60-day license suspension 
is inadequate for the misconduct Attorney Saltzwadel committed 
in this manner, which involves five clients and 11 counts of 
misconduct, including a violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) for making 
misrepresentations to another attorney representing their mutual 
client.  However, we acknowledge that the OLR has advised us 
that Attorney Saltzwadel has fully admitted responsibility for 
her misconduct, and convincingly espoused her understanding of 
the need to avoid repeating it.  The OLR asserts that a 
suspension of more than 60 days is not merited here.  Therefore, 
although the cases cited by the OLR are not precisely on point 
because of factual differences and generally less serious 
misconduct, we are persuaded that a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney Saltzwadel's license to practice law in Wisconsin is an 
appropriate level of discipline for this case.  
No. 
2022AP645-D   
 
15 
 
¶39 Henceforth, 
we 
expect 
Attorney 
Saltzwadel 
to 
demonstrate that she has a proper understanding of and attitude 
toward the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar in 
this state and that she will act in conformity with those 
standards.  Attorney Saltzwadel is reminded that this court may 
impose progressively severe sanctions when an attorney engages 
in 
repeated 
misconduct. 
See, 
e.g., 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Netzer, 2014 WI 7, ¶49, 352 Wis. 2d 310, 841 
N.W.2d 820 ("[t]his court has long adhered to the concept of 
progressive discipline in attorney regulatory cases.")  We 
accept the stipulation and impose a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney Saltzwadel's license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶40 We turn to the issue of costs.  The OLR's complaint 
requested the court impose the costs of the proceeding.  
However, because this matter has been resolved by means of a 
stipulation without the appointment of a referee, we do not 
impose costs upon Attorney Saltzwadel.  The OLR does not seek 
restitution and no restitution is ordered.  
¶41 IT 
IS 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
license 
of 
Crystal 
L. 
Saltzwadel to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for 60-
days, effective August 9, 2022. 
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Crystal L. Saltzwadel 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. 
2022AP645-D   
 
16 
 
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
No. 
2022AP645-D   
 
 
 
1