Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. William F. Mross
Citation: 2013 WI 44
Docket Number: 2012AP000406-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 17, 2013

2013 WI 44 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP406-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
William F. Mross , Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
William F. Mross, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MROSS     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 17, 2013 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
2013 WI 44
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP406-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against William F. Mross, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
William F. Mross, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
MAY 17, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the supplemental report and 
recommendation of the referee, Michael F. Dubis, finding that 
William F. Mross violated the Wisconsin Rules of Professional 
Conduct for Attorneys and recommending that Attorney Mross's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 60 days 
and that he be required to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Because no appeal has been filed, we review the 
referee's report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  After conducting an 
independent review of the matter, we adopt the referee's 
findings of fact and supplemental conclusions of law, and we 
agree 
with the referee's supplemental recommendation that 
Attorney Mross's license to practice law be suspended for a 
period of 60 days.  We also agree that Attorney Mross should be 
required to pay the full costs of the proceeding, which were 
$5,973.98 as of December 17, 2012. 
¶3 
Attorney Mross was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1975 and practices in Racine.  He has been subject 
to professional discipline on four prior occasions.  In 2003, 
his license was suspended for 90 days for violating SCR 
20:8.4(b)2 by delivering cigarettes to inmates at the Racine 
County jail, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 302.095(2).  In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Mross, 
2003 
WI 
4, 
259 
Wis. 2d 8, 
657 
N.W.2d 342. 
 
In 
2004, 
he 
was 
privately 
reprimanded for failing to competently represent, communicate 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
2 SCR 20:8.4(b) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects; . . . ."  
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
3 
 
with, and keep informed clients in the defense of a foreclosure 
matter.  Private Reprimand, No. 2004-11.  In 2006, he was 
publicly 
reprimanded for failing to diligently represent, 
communicate with, and keep clients informed in foreclosure 
matters; and accepting compensation for representing those 
clients from a non-attorney offering debt relief, without the 
clients' consent.  Public Reprimand of William F. Mross, 
No. 2006-10. 
 
In 
2010, 
he 
was 
publicly 
reprimanded 
for 
practicing 
law 
while 
administratively 
suspended 
for 
noncompliance with continuing legal education (CLE) requirements 
and failing to disclose to the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) or 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) his practice activities 
while suspended, and for providing improper financial assistance 
to clients when he made a bankruptcy plan payment for them out 
of his own funds.  Public Reprimand of William F. Mross, 
No. 2010-5. 
¶4 
The 
instant 
matter 
involves 
Attorney 
Mross's 
representation of two clients in foreclosure and bankruptcy 
proceedings.  In September 2006 D.Y. and S.Y. retained Attorney 
Mross to represent them in a mortgage foreclosure action.  D.Y. 
and S.Y. had been referred to Attorney Mross by Kent Arney, a 
paralegal, who solicits foreclosure defendants and offers them 
assistance in handling their foreclosure matters.  In October of 
2006, the Racine County circuit court granted a default judgment 
of foreclosure against D.Y. and S.Y. 
¶5 
In April of 2007, D.Y. and S.Y., represented by 
Attorney Mross, filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy action in the 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
4 
 
Eastern District of Wisconsin.  On December 20, 2007, the 
bankruptcy court notified D.Y. and S.Y. and Attorney Mross of 
financial management course requirements that were a condition 
precedent to obtaining a discharge.  On January 28, 2008, the 
bankruptcy trustee moved to convert the bankruptcy to a Chapter 
7 proceeding.  The bankruptcy court granted the trustee's motion 
to convert the matter to a Chapter 7 proceeding on February 5, 
2008. 
¶6 
The meeting of creditors occurred on March 31, 2008.  
Since D.Y. and S.Y. were then in a Chapter 7 proceeding, they 
had approximately 60 days thereafter to file a certification 
with the bankruptcy court confirming that they successfully 
completed an approved financial management course. 
¶7 
Attorney Mross's license to practice law was suspended 
from May 27, 2008 until July 15, 2008, due to his failure to 
meet his CLE obligations. 
¶8 
As of May 31, 2008, D.Y. and S.Y. had met all 
requirements for bankruptcy discharge, except for filing the 
financial management course completion certification.  D.Y. and 
S.Y. did not complete the course requirement, nor did Attorney 
Mross remind them to do so at any time before the May 30, 2008 
course completion certification filing deadline. 
¶9 
On July 22, 2008, the bankruptcy court closed D.Y. and 
S.Y.'s case without discharge because the required certification 
of financial management course completion had not been filed.  
The closing notice was sent to both D.Y. and S.Y. and Attorney 
Mross.  Upon receiving the case closing notice, D.Y. and S.Y. 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
5 
 
enrolled in a financial management course, which they completed 
on August 17, 2008.  D.Y. and S.Y. also contacted Attorney Mross 
and asked him to reopen their bankruptcy proceeding. 
¶10 On October 1, 2008, Attorney Mross filed a motion in 
the Racine County foreclosure action seeking to cancel the 
sheriff's sale which had been scheduled after the non-discharge 
closure of the bankruptcy matter.  On October 3, 2008, Attorney 
Mross sent D.Y. and S.Y. a bill for $500 for this work.  On 
November 18, 2008, the circuit court vacated the foreclosure 
judgment and dismissed the action without prejudice. 
¶11 Over the course of the next year, D.Y. and S.Y. 
contacted Attorney Mross periodically by e-mail to ask about 
reopening their bankruptcy.  Each time, Attorney Mross gave a 
different excuse for why he had not filed a motion to reopen the 
case, and eventually told them not to communicate with him by e-
mail because his computer was not working. 
¶12 On November 20, 2009, S.Y. filed a grievance against 
Attorney Mross with the OLR. 
¶13 On January 4, 2010, Attorney Mross moved to reopen 
D.Y. and S.Y.'s bankruptcy and filed documents, including D.Y. 
and S.Y.'s financial management course completion certificates.  
On February 17, 2010, the bankruptcy court reopened the case and 
accepted the course completion certifications.  In granting the 
motion to reopen, the bankruptcy court commented that while D.Y. 
and S.Y. had acted promptly to take the course and obtain the 
completion certificate, it was only due to Attorney Mross's 
suspended license and his subsequent failure to act promptly 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
6 
 
that 18 months had elapsed before the motion to reopen the 
bankruptcy case was filed.  On February 18, 2010, the bankruptcy 
court entered an order granting D.Y. and S.Y. a discharge. 
¶14 On February 27, 2012, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging the following counts of misconduct with respect to 
Attorney Mross's handling of D.Y. and S.Y.'s bankruptcy case: 
 
[COUNT I:]  By failing to ensure that his clients 
met all the requirements for discharge in their 
bankruptcy, and by failing for eighteen (18) months to 
seek the reopening of his clients' bankruptcy, Mross 
violated SCR 20:1.3.3 
 
[COUNT II:]  By failing to keep his clients 
informed about the status of their bankruptcy and 
their requirements for discharge, Mross violated SCR 
20:1.4(a)(3).4 
¶15 The OLR's complaint also alleged that Attorney Mross 
engaged 
in 
professional 
misconduct 
with 
respect 
to 
his 
representation of L.B. and P.B.  In 2008, L.B. and P.B. were 
experiencing debt management problems and in November 2008 their 
mortgage lender filed a foreclosure action against them in Rock 
County circuit court.  Shortly after the foreclosure action was 
filed, L.B. and P.B. received a solicitation letter from 
paralegal Kent Arney offering "to discuss alternatives for a 
quick resolution."  L.B. and P.B. called Arney and hired him 
over the phone and agreed to pay him $1,800.  L.B. and P.B. paid 
$600 to Arney and they also paid a total of $1,200 to Attorney 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.3 states "[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) states a lawyer shall "keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter; . . . ." 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
7 
 
Mross. 
 
L.B. 
and 
P.B. 
gave 
Arney 
the 
information 
and 
documentation needed to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.  
They never directly hired Attorney Mross.  Instead, Arney told 
L.B. and P.B. that Attorney Mross would be helping him with the 
case.  There was no written fee agreement between Attorney Mross 
and L.B. and P.B. 
¶16 Attorney Mross filed an answer in the foreclosure case 
on L.B. and P.B.'s behalf on March 9, 2009.  L.B. and P.B. had 
not met with Attorney Mross prior to this time.  On June 16, 
2009, the lender moved for judgment in the foreclosure action, 
which the circuit court granted on July 17, 2009.  The judgment 
provided for a six-month redemption period.  During the 
redemption period the debtor is entitled to pay off the amount 
due and keep the home.  Once the redemption period is over, a 
sheriff's sale of the property occurs. 
¶17 Attorney Mross had little, if any, contact with L.B. 
and P.B. during the redemption period.  A sheriff's sale of L.B. 
and P.B.'s residence occurred, and the report of the sheriff's 
sale was filed on January 21, 2010. 
¶18 On January 19, 2010, Attorney Mross filed a Chapter 13 
bankruptcy action on behalf of L.B. and P.B.  Later that day the 
clerk of the bankruptcy court notified Attorney Mross that he 
had failed to file numerous required documents with L.B. and 
P.B.'s bankruptcy petition.  The notice indicated the deadline 
to submit the missing documents was February 2, 2010.  Attorney 
Mross failed to file the missing documents by that date.  On 
February 3, 2010, the bankruptcy trustee moved to dismiss L.B. 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
8 
 
and P.B.'s bankruptcy petition for failure to file the missing 
documents.  On February 24, 2010, Attorney Mross moved to 
convert L.B. and P.B.'s bankruptcy to a Chapter 7 proceeding.  
The bankruptcy court granted the conversion on February 25, 
2010. 
¶19 The conversion to a Chapter 7 proceeding moved the 
deadline for filing the required documentation to April 10, 
2010, and moved the meeting of creditors to April 20, 2010.  
Attorney Mross filed some but not all of the required documents, 
which were received by the bankruptcy court on April 19, 2010.  
The creditors' meeting was rescheduled to May 17, 2010.  
Attorney Mross had no contact with L.B. and P.B. between 
January 29, 2010 and his filing of the incomplete information on 
April 19, 2010. 
¶20 On May 14, 2010, the bankruptcy trustee moved to 
dismiss L.B. and P.B.'s bankruptcy for failure to file certain 
documents.  On May 17, 2010, Attorney Mross and L.B. and P.B. 
appeared for the meeting of creditors.  At the meeting, L.B. and 
P.B. testified that Attorney Mross had not requested the 
relevant documents from L.B. and P.B.  The meeting of creditors 
was therefore continued to June 1, 2010. 
¶21 Immediately 
after 
the 
May 
17, 
2010 
meeting 
of 
creditors, Attorney Mross requested that L.B. and P.B. pay him 
the second and final $600 installment payment toward his $1,200 
fee, and L.B. and P.B. did so.  On May 25, 2010, Attorney Mross 
sent L.B. and P.B. documents from the foreclosure action 
indicating that the creditor had moved the bankruptcy court for 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
9 
 
relief from the automatic stay.  The bankruptcy trustee 
initially objected to the creditor's request but later withdrew 
the objection.  On May 4, 2010, the bankruptcy court relieved 
the creditor from the stay.  Attorney Mross did not file any 
documents with the bankruptcy court between the May 17, 2010 
meeting of creditors and the June 1, 2010 continued meeting. 
¶22 At the continued meeting of creditors on June 1, 2010, 
L.B. and P.B. appeared and filed the missing documents.  
Attorney Mross did not appear at the continued meeting and 
advised the trustee's office by telephone that he had not 
appeared due to a scheduling conflict. 
¶23 On June 4, 2010, the bankruptcy trustee withdrew the 
motion to dismiss, noting that L.B. and P.B. had filed the 
required documentation with the bankruptcy court.  On June 7, 
2010, Attorney Mross filed an objection to the motion to 
dismiss.  By this time L.B. and P.B. had already submitted the 
requested documentation and the trustee had withdrawn the motion 
to dismiss.  On June 8, 2010, Attorney Mross filed what he 
labeled an "Amended" attorney fee disclosure, although no prior 
attorney fee disclosure had been filed. 
¶24 The bankruptcy court granted a discharge to L.B. and 
P.B. on July 8, 2010.  Based on L.B. and P.B.'s statements at 
the June 1, 2010 continued meeting of creditors and the attorney 
fee disclosure Attorney Mross filed on June 8, 2010, the trustee 
moved the court for an order to examine Attorney Mross's fees 
and require him to turn over any excess fees to L.B. and P.B.  
In the motion the trustee noted that Attorney Mross failed to 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
10 
 
file required documentation and twice put his clients in 
jeopardy of dismissal and forced the trustee to continue the 
meeting of creditors twice.  The motion also noted Attorney 
Mross failed to appear at the second continued meeting of 
creditors. 
¶25 In a July 28, 2010 conference call with L.B. and P.B., 
Attorney Mross, and the trustee, Attorney Mross agreed to refund 
L.B. and P.B. the entire $1,200 they had paid him.  L.B. and 
P.B. received the refund on July 29, 2010.  On August 2, 2010, 
Attorney Mross filed a motion with the bankruptcy court to 
withdraw as counsel for L.B. and P.B.  The trustee withdrew the 
motion for fee examination on August 11, 2010. 
¶26 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Mross's representation of 
L.B. and P.B.: 
 
[COUNT III:]  By failing to timely file the 
necessary documentation required for his clients' 
bankruptcy and by failing to appear for the final 
creditors' meeting, Mross violated SCR 20:1.3. 
 
[COUNT IV:]  By failing to consult with his 
clients about the objectives of the representation, 
Mross violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(2). 
 
[COUNT V:]  By failing to communicate with his 
clients and inform them about the status of their 
bankruptcy, Mross violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3). 
 
[COUNT VI:]  By failing to provide his clients a 
written fee agreement setting forth the scope of the 
representation and the basis or rate of the $1.200 fee 
they paid to him, Mross violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1).5 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) provides: 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
11 
 
¶27 A hearing was held before the referee on November 6, 
2012.  On November 28, 2012, the referee filed his report and 
recommendation.  The referee filed a supplemental report and 
recommendation on February 21, 2013.  The referee found in favor 
of the OLR on Counts I, III, and VI.  He found in favor of 
Attorney Mross on Count II, IV, and V.   
¶28 As to Count II, the referee said the practice in the 
bankruptcy court is that notices are sent to both the attorney 
and the debtors.  The referee reasoned D.Y. and S.Y. were aware 
of their obligation to file a financial management course 
completion certificate and for that reason Attorney Mross should 
not be liable for failing to inform D.Y. and S.Y. of something 
they were already aware of. 
¶29 As to Count IV, the referee said although the record 
was clear that Attorney Mross failed to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness, the record failed to show that he did 
not consult with L.B. and P.B. about the objectives of his 
representation.  The referee said the fact Attorney Mross had 
                                                                                                                                                             
The scope of the representation and the basis or 
rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will 
be responsible shall be communicated to the client in 
writing, except before or within a reasonable time 
after commencing the representation when the lawyer 
will charge a regularly represented client on the same 
basis or rate as in the past.  If it is reasonably 
foreseeable that the total cost of the representation 
to the client, including attorney's fees, will be 
$1000 or less, the communication may be oral or in 
writing.  Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee 
or expenses shall also be communicated in writing to 
the client. 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
12 
 
little or no contact with L.B. and P.B. during certain time 
periods did not equate to a failure to consult with them about 
the objectives of the representation.  The referee said from the 
record it appeared L.B. and P.B. and Attorney Mross were always 
aware of the objectives sought but that Attorney Mross failed to 
act with reasonable diligence in accomplishing those objectives.  
With respect to Count V, the referee found Attorney Mross did 
communicate with and inform L.B. and P.B. about their case but 
that he failed to carry out the planned objectives. 
¶30 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, 
the referee recommended a 60-day suspension of Attorney Mross's 
license to practice law.  The referee noted that the OLR 
requested a 90-day suspension.  In concluding that a 60-day 
suspension is more appropriate, the referee pointed out that 
Attorney Mross refunded to L.B. and P.B. the $1,200 they had 
paid him.  The referee also noted Attorney Mross has consented 
to no longer taking referral bankruptcies from Arney.  The 
referee also noted that he found in favor of Attorney Mross on 
three out of the original six counts alleged in the OLR's 
complaint.  The referee also noted that Attorney Mross's 
behavior at the evidentiary hearing was not combative or 
antagonistic toward his former clients, counsel for the OLR, or 
the referee.  The referee also recommended that Attorney Mross 
pay the full costs of the proceeding. 
¶31 When reviewing a referee's report and recommendation, 
we will affirm the referee's findings of fact unless they are 
clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
13 
 
Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  The 
referee's conclusions of law are subject to de novo review.  Id.  
We determine the appropriate level of discipline given the 
particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's 
recommendation, but benefitting from it.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686.  After independently reviewing the matter, we 
conclude that the findings of fact contained in the referee's 
supplemental report are not clearly erroneous, and we adopt 
them.  We also agree that the referee's supplemental conclusions 
of law regarding Attorney Mross's misconduct are correct, and we 
concur with the referee that a 60-day suspension of Attorney 
Mross's license to practice law is appropriate.  We also agree 
that Attorney Mross should be required to pay the full costs of 
this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶32 IT IS ORDERED that the license of William F. Mross to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective June 14, 2013. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William F. Mross 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. 
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, William F. Mross shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation, the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$5,973.98. 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
14 
 
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2013 WI 44
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP406-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against William F. Mross, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
William F. Mross, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
MAY 17, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶36 PER CURIAM.   We review the supplemental report and 
recommendation of the referee, Michael F. Dubis, finding that 
William F. Mross violated the Wisconsin Rules of Professional 
Conduct for Attorneys and recommending that Attorney Mross's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 60 days 
and that he be required to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
2 
 
¶37 Because no appeal has been filed, we review the 
referee's report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  After conducting an 
independent review of the matter, we adopt the referee's 
findings of fact and supplemental conclusions of law, and we 
agree 
with the referee's supplemental recommendation that 
Attorney Mross's license to practice law be suspended for a 
period of 60 days.  We also agree that Attorney Mross should be 
required to pay the full costs of the proceeding, which were 
$5,973.98 as of December 17, 2012. 
¶38 Attorney Mross was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1975 and practices in Racine.  He has been subject 
to professional discipline on four prior occasions.  In 2003, 
his license was suspended for 90 days for violating SCR 
20:8.4(b)2 by delivering cigarettes to inmates at the Racine 
County jail, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 302.095(2).  In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Mross, 
2003 
WI 
4, 
259 
Wis. 2d 8, 
657 
N.W.2d 342. 
 
In 
2004, 
he 
was 
privately 
reprimanded for failing to competently represent, communicate 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
2 SCR 20:8.4(b) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects; . . . ."  
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
3 
 
with, and keep informed clients in the defense of a foreclosure 
matter.  Private Reprimand, No. 2004-11.  In 2006, he was 
publicly 
reprimanded for failing to diligently represent, 
communicate with, and keep clients informed in foreclosure 
matters; and accepting compensation for representing those 
clients from a non-attorney offering debt relief, without the 
clients' consent.  Public Reprimand of William F. Mross, 
No. 2006-10. 
 
In 
2010, 
he 
was 
publicly 
reprimanded 
for 
practicing 
law 
while 
administratively 
suspended 
for 
noncompliance with continuing legal education (CLE) requirements 
and failing to disclose to the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) or 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) his practice activities 
while suspended, and for providing improper financial assistance 
to clients when he made a bankruptcy plan payment for them out 
of his own funds.  Public Reprimand of William F. Mross, 
No. 2010-5. 
¶39 The 
instant 
matter 
involves 
Attorney 
Mross's 
representation of two clients in foreclosure and bankruptcy 
proceedings.  In September 2006 D.Y. and S.Y. retained Attorney 
Mross to represent them in a mortgage foreclosure action.  D.Y. 
and S.Y. had been referred to Attorney Mross by Kent Arney, a 
paralegal, who solicits foreclosure defendants and offers them 
assistance in handling their foreclosure matters.  In October of 
2006, the Racine County circuit court granted a default judgment 
of foreclosure against D.Y. and S.Y. 
¶40 In April of 2007, D.Y. and S.Y., represented by 
Attorney Mross, filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy action in the 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
4 
 
Eastern District of Wisconsin.  On December 20, 2007, the 
bankruptcy court notified D.Y. and S.Y. and Attorney Mross of 
financial management course requirements that were a condition 
precedent to obtaining a discharge.  On January 28, 2008, the 
bankruptcy trustee moved to convert the bankruptcy to a Chapter 
7 proceeding.  The bankruptcy court granted the trustee's motion 
to convert the matter to a Chapter 7 proceeding on February 5, 
2008. 
¶41 The meeting of creditors occurred on March 31, 2008.  
Since D.Y. and S.Y. were then in a Chapter 7 proceeding, they 
had approximately 60 days thereafter to file a certification 
with the bankruptcy court confirming that they successfully 
completed an approved financial management course. 
¶42 Attorney Mross's license to practice law was suspended 
from May 27, 2008 until July 15, 2008, due to his failure to 
meet his CLE obligations. 
¶43 As of May 31, 2008, D.Y. and S.Y. had met all 
requirements for bankruptcy discharge, except for filing the 
financial management course completion certification.  D.Y. and 
S.Y. did not complete the course requirement, nor did Attorney 
Mross remind them to do so at any time before the May 30, 2008 
course completion certification filing deadline. 
¶44 On July 22, 2008, the bankruptcy court closed D.Y. and 
S.Y.'s case without discharge because the required certification 
of financial management course completion had not been filed.  
The closing notice was sent to both D.Y. and S.Y. and Attorney 
Mross.  Upon receiving the case closing notice, D.Y. and S.Y. 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
5 
 
enrolled in a financial management course, which they completed 
on August 17, 2008.  D.Y. and S.Y. also contacted Attorney Mross 
and asked him to reopen their bankruptcy proceeding. 
¶45 On October 1, 2008, Attorney Mross filed a motion in 
the Racine County foreclosure action seeking to cancel the 
sheriff's sale which had been scheduled after the non-discharge 
closure of the bankruptcy matter.  On October 3, 2008, Attorney 
Mross sent D.Y. and S.Y. a bill for $500 for this work.  On 
November 18, 2008, the circuit court vacated the foreclosure 
judgment and dismissed the action without prejudice. 
¶46 Over the course of the next year, D.Y. and S.Y. 
contacted Attorney Mross periodically by e-mail to ask about 
reopening their bankruptcy.  Each time, Attorney Mross gave a 
different excuse for why he had not filed a motion to reopen the 
case, and eventually told them not to communicate with him by e-
mail because his computer was not working. 
¶47 On November 20, 2009, S.Y. filed a grievance against 
Attorney Mross with the OLR. 
¶48 On January 4, 2010, Attorney Mross moved to reopen 
D.Y. and S.Y.'s bankruptcy and filed documents, including D.Y. 
and S.Y.'s financial management course completion certificates.  
On February 17, 2010, the bankruptcy court reopened the case and 
accepted the course completion certifications.  In granting the 
motion to reopen, the bankruptcy court commented that while D.Y. 
and S.Y. had acted promptly to take the course and obtain the 
completion certificate, it was only due to Attorney Mross's 
suspended license and his subsequent failure to act promptly 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
6 
 
that 18 months had elapsed before the motion to reopen the 
bankruptcy case was filed.  On February 18, 2010, the bankruptcy 
court entered an order granting D.Y. and S.Y. a discharge. 
¶49 On February 27, 2012, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging the following counts of misconduct with respect to 
Attorney Mross's handling of D.Y. and S.Y.'s bankruptcy case: 
 
[COUNT I:]  By failing to ensure that his clients 
met all the requirements for discharge in their 
bankruptcy, and by failing for eighteen (18) months to 
seek the reopening of his clients' bankruptcy, Mross 
violated SCR 20:1.3.3 
 
[COUNT II:]  By failing to keep his clients 
informed about the status of their bankruptcy and 
their requirements for discharge, Mross violated SCR 
20:1.4(a)(3).4 
¶50 The OLR's complaint also alleged that Attorney Mross 
engaged 
in 
professional 
misconduct 
with 
respect 
to 
his 
representation of L.B. and P.B.  In 2008, L.B. and P.B. were 
experiencing debt management problems and in November 2008 their 
mortgage lender filed a foreclosure action against them in Rock 
County circuit court.  Shortly after the foreclosure action was 
filed, L.B. and P.B. received a solicitation letter from 
paralegal Kent Arney offering "to discuss alternatives for a 
quick resolution."  L.B. and P.B. called Arney and hired him 
over the phone and agreed to pay him $1,800.  L.B. and P.B. paid 
$600 to Arney and they also paid a total of $1,200 to Attorney 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.3 states "[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) states a lawyer shall "keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter; . . . ." 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
7 
 
Mross. 
 
L.B. 
and 
P.B. 
gave 
Arney 
the 
information 
and 
documentation needed to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.  
They never directly hired Attorney Mross.  Instead, Arney told 
L.B. and P.B. that Attorney Mross would be helping him with the 
case.  There was no written fee agreement between Attorney Mross 
and L.B. and P.B. 
¶51 Attorney Mross filed an answer in the foreclosure case 
on L.B. and P.B.'s behalf on March 9, 2009.  L.B. and P.B. had 
not met with Attorney Mross prior to this time.  On June 16, 
2009, the lender moved for judgment in the foreclosure action, 
which the circuit court granted on July 17, 2009.  The judgment 
provided for a six-month redemption period.  During the 
redemption period the debtor is entitled to pay off the amount 
due and keep the home.  Once the redemption period is over, a 
sheriff's sale of the property occurs. 
¶52 Attorney Mross had little, if any, contact with L.B. 
and P.B. during the redemption period.  A sheriff's sale of L.B. 
and P.B.'s residence occurred, and the report of the sheriff's 
sale was filed on January 21, 2010. 
¶53 On January 19, 2010, Attorney Mross filed a Chapter 13 
bankruptcy action on behalf of L.B. and P.B.  Later that day the 
clerk of the bankruptcy court notified Attorney Mross that he 
had failed to file numerous required documents with L.B. and 
P.B.'s bankruptcy petition.  The notice indicated the deadline 
to submit the missing documents was February 2, 2010.  Attorney 
Mross failed to file the missing documents by that date.  On 
February 3, 2010, the bankruptcy trustee moved to dismiss L.B. 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
8 
 
and P.B.'s bankruptcy petition for failure to file the missing 
documents.  On February 24, 2010, Attorney Mross moved to 
convert L.B. and P.B.'s bankruptcy to a Chapter 7 proceeding.  
The bankruptcy court granted the conversion on February 25, 
2010. 
¶54 The conversion to a Chapter 7 proceeding moved the 
deadline for filing the required documentation to April 10, 
2010, and moved the meeting of creditors to April 20, 2010.  
Attorney Mross filed some but not all of the required documents, 
which were received by the bankruptcy court on April 19, 2010.  
The creditors' meeting was rescheduled to May 17, 2010.  
Attorney Mross had no contact with L.B. and P.B. between 
January 29, 2010 and his filing of the incomplete information on 
April 19, 2010. 
¶55 On May 14, 2010, the bankruptcy trustee moved to 
dismiss L.B. and P.B.'s bankruptcy for failure to file certain 
documents.  On May 17, 2010, Attorney Mross and L.B. and P.B. 
appeared for the meeting of creditors.  At the meeting, L.B. and 
P.B. testified that Attorney Mross had not requested the 
relevant documents from L.B. and P.B.  The meeting of creditors 
was therefore continued to June 1, 2010. 
¶56 Immediately 
after 
the 
May 
17, 
2010 
meeting 
of 
creditors, Attorney Mross requested that L.B. and P.B. pay him 
the second and final $600 installment payment toward his $1,200 
fee, and L.B. and P.B. did so.  On May 25, 2010, Attorney Mross 
sent L.B. and P.B. documents from the foreclosure action 
indicating that the creditor had moved the bankruptcy court for 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
9 
 
relief from the automatic stay.  The bankruptcy trustee 
initially objected to the creditor's request but later withdrew 
the objection.  On May 4, 2010, the bankruptcy court relieved 
the creditor from the stay.  Attorney Mross did not file any 
documents with the bankruptcy court between the May 17, 2010 
meeting of creditors and the June 1, 2010 continued meeting. 
¶57 At the continued meeting of creditors on June 1, 2010, 
L.B. and P.B. appeared and filed the missing documents.  
Attorney Mross did not appear at the continued meeting and 
advised the trustee's office by telephone that he had not 
appeared due to a scheduling conflict. 
¶58 On June 4, 2010, the bankruptcy trustee withdrew the 
motion to dismiss, noting that L.B. and P.B. had filed the 
required documentation with the bankruptcy court.  On June 7, 
2010, Attorney Mross filed an objection to the motion to 
dismiss.  By this time L.B. and P.B. had already submitted the 
requested documentation and the trustee had withdrawn the motion 
to dismiss.  On June 8, 2010, Attorney Mross filed what he 
labeled an "Amended" attorney fee disclosure, although no prior 
attorney fee disclosure had been filed. 
¶59 The bankruptcy court granted a discharge to L.B. and 
P.B. on July 8, 2010.  Based on L.B. and P.B.'s statements at 
the June 1, 2010 continued meeting of creditors and the attorney 
fee disclosure Attorney Mross filed on June 8, 2010, the trustee 
moved the court for an order to examine Attorney Mross's fees 
and require him to turn over any excess fees to L.B. and P.B.  
In the motion the trustee noted that Attorney Mross failed to 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
10 
 
file required documentation and twice put his clients in 
jeopardy of dismissal and forced the trustee to continue the 
meeting of creditors twice.  The motion also noted Attorney 
Mross failed to appear at the second continued meeting of 
creditors. 
¶60 In a July 28, 2010 conference call with L.B. and P.B., 
Attorney Mross, and the trustee, Attorney Mross agreed to refund 
L.B. and P.B. the entire $1,200 they had paid him.  L.B. and 
P.B. received the refund on July 29, 2010.  On August 2, 2010, 
Attorney Mross filed a motion with the bankruptcy court to 
withdraw as counsel for L.B. and P.B.  The trustee withdrew the 
motion for fee examination on August 11, 2010. 
¶61 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Mross's representation of 
L.B. and P.B.: 
 
[COUNT III:]  By failing to timely file the 
necessary documentation required for his clients' 
bankruptcy and by failing to appear for the final 
creditors' meeting, Mross violated SCR 20:1.3. 
 
[COUNT IV:]  By failing to consult with his 
clients about the objectives of the representation, 
Mross violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(2). 
 
[COUNT V:]  By failing to communicate with his 
clients and inform them about the status of their 
bankruptcy, Mross violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3). 
 
[COUNT VI:]  By failing to provide his clients a 
written fee agreement setting forth the scope of the 
representation and the basis or rate of the $1.200 fee 
they paid to him, Mross violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1).5 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) provides: 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
11 
 
¶62 A hearing was held before the referee on November 6, 
2012.  On November 28, 2012, the referee filed his report and 
recommendation.  The referee filed a supplemental report and 
recommendation on February 21, 2013.  The referee found in favor 
of the OLR on Counts I, III, and VI.  He found in favor of 
Attorney Mross on Count II, IV, and V.   
¶63 As to Count II, the referee said the practice in the 
bankruptcy court is that notices are sent to both the attorney 
and the debtors.  The referee reasoned D.Y. and S.Y. were aware 
of their obligation to file a financial management course 
completion certificate and for that reason Attorney Mross should 
not be liable for failing to inform D.Y. and S.Y. of something 
they were already aware of. 
¶64 As to Count IV, the referee said although the record 
was clear that Attorney Mross failed to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness, the record failed to show that he did 
not consult with L.B. and P.B. about the objectives of his 
representation.  The referee said the fact Attorney Mross had 
                                                                                                                                                             
The scope of the representation and the basis or 
rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will 
be responsible shall be communicated to the client in 
writing, except before or within a reasonable time 
after commencing the representation when the lawyer 
will charge a regularly represented client on the same 
basis or rate as in the past.  If it is reasonably 
foreseeable that the total cost of the representation 
to the client, including attorney's fees, will be 
$1000 or less, the communication may be oral or in 
writing.  Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee 
or expenses shall also be communicated in writing to 
the client. 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
12 
 
little or no contact with L.B. and P.B. during certain time 
periods did not equate to a failure to consult with them about 
the objectives of the representation.  The referee said from the 
record it appeared L.B. and P.B. and Attorney Mross were always 
aware of the objectives sought but that Attorney Mross failed to 
act with reasonable diligence in accomplishing those objectives.  
With respect to Count V, the referee found Attorney Mross did 
communicate with and inform L.B. and P.B. about their case but 
that he failed to carry out the planned objectives. 
¶65 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, 
the referee recommended a 60-day suspension of Attorney Mross's 
license to practice law.  The referee noted that the OLR 
requested a 90-day suspension.  In concluding that a 60-day 
suspension is more appropriate, the referee pointed out that 
Attorney Mross refunded to L.B. and P.B. the $1,200 they had 
paid him.  The referee also noted Attorney Mross has consented 
to no longer taking referral bankruptcies from Arney.  The 
referee also noted that he found in favor of Attorney Mross on 
three out of the original six counts alleged in the OLR's 
complaint.  The referee also noted that Attorney Mross's 
behavior at the evidentiary hearing was not combative or 
antagonistic toward his former clients, counsel for the OLR, or 
the referee.  The referee also recommended that Attorney Mross 
pay the full costs of the proceeding. 
¶66 When reviewing a referee's report and recommendation, 
we will affirm the referee's findings of fact unless they are 
clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
13 
 
Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  The 
referee's conclusions of law are subject to de novo review.  Id.  
We determine the appropriate level of discipline given the 
particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's 
recommendation, but benefitting from it.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686.  After independently reviewing the matter, we 
conclude that the findings of fact contained in the referee's 
supplemental report are not clearly erroneous, and we adopt 
them.  We also agree that the referee's supplemental conclusions 
of law regarding Attorney Mross's misconduct are correct, and we 
concur with the referee that a 60-day suspension of Attorney 
Mross's license to practice law is appropriate.  We also agree 
that Attorney Mross should be required to pay the full costs of 
this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶67 IT IS ORDERED that the license of William F. Mross to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective June 14, 2013. 
¶68 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William F. Mross 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. 
¶69 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, William F. Mross shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation, the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$5,973.98. 
No. 
2012AP406-D   
 
14 
 
¶70 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2).