Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John A. Birdsall
Citation: 2004 WI 143
Docket Number: 2003AP000086-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: November 23, 2004

2004 WI 143 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-0086-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John A. Birdsall, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
John A. Birdsall,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BIRDSALL 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 23, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ABRAHAMSON, C.J., and BUTLER, J., did not 
participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2004 WI 143 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  03-0086-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John A. Birdsall, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
John A. Birdsall,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 23, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney John A. Birdsall be publicly reprimanded 
for having committed two counts of professional misconduct.  As 
alleged in the complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) in this court on January 10, 2003, Birdsall's 
misconduct included committing a criminal act that reflects 
adversely on Birdsall's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a 
No. 
03-0086-D   
 
2 
 
lawyer, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b)1 and counseling a client to 
engage, or assisting a client, in conduct that Birdsall knew was 
criminal or fraudulent, in violation of SCR 20:1.2(d).2   
¶2 
In addition to recommending that Birdsall be publicly 
reprimanded for these acts of professional misconduct, the 
referee also recommended that Birdsall be required to pay the 
costs of the disciplinary proceeding now totaling $20,789.94.   
¶3 
We determine that the clear and convincing evidence 
presented to the referee established that Birdsall committed the 
two counts of professional misconduct as alleged in the OLR's 
complaint, and we agree with the referee's recommendation that 
Attorney Birdsall be publicly reprimanded for this misconduct.  
We also determine that Birdsall shall pay the costs of these 
proceedings as referenced above.  
¶4 
Attorney John A. Birdsall was admitted to practice law 
in this state on June 20, 1989; his practice is limited to 
criminal defense litigation in both state and federal courts.  
                                                 
1 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." 
2 SCR 20:1.2(d) provides: 
(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or 
assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is 
criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the 
legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct 
with a client and may counsel or assist a client to 
make a good faith effort to determine the validity, 
scope, meaning or application of the law. 
No. 
03-0086-D   
 
3 
 
His license was suspended in 1991 for nonpayment of dues but 
then reinstated upon payment.  
¶5 
The complaint OLR filed in this court specifically 
alleged that Birdsall had represented N.A. who had been charged 
with various felonies arising from domestic abuse incidents 
involving N.A. and his estranged wife, D.A.  D.A. reported to 
the police that N.A. had repeatedly choked her and hit her head 
against the steering wheel of her car and that N.A. had pointed 
a gun at her head and pulled the trigger but that the gun had 
not fired.  As a result of his actions N.A. was charged with, 
among 
other 
crimes, 
one 
count 
of 
attempted 
first-degree 
intentional homicide.  
¶6 
With Birdsall representing him, N.A. was released on a 
$10,000 cash bond in Brown county and a $1000 signature bond in 
Calumet county; both bonds specifically contained "no contact" 
provisions precluding any contact between N.A. and his estranged 
wife, D.A.  
¶7 
The OLR complaint alleged that despite his knowledge 
of the no contact provisions, Birdsall arranged to meet with 
D.A. at a local restaurant and without her knowledge, Birdsall 
had arranged to have N.A. appear at the restaurant too.  At that 
meeting, which Birdsall had surreptitiously videotaped and 
recorded, Birdsall encouraged D.A. to change or recant her 
statements to the police about N.A.'s actions.  When D.A. 
informed Birdsall that the district attorney had advised her 
that she could not change her story because that would be 
perjury, Birdsall said: 
No. 
03-0086-D   
 
4 
 
Perjury is virtually never charged except under the 
most bizarre and dire circumstances. . . .  
 
The most that I would see is him trying to 
conjure up some obstructing thing.  Even that could be 
easily avoided, easily avoided.  There is no reason in 
my view for any of this to reap repercussions on you.  
There's I don't know how many different cases I've 
seen where the quote unquote victim comes in and says, 
I made the whole thing up. . . .  
¶8 
During the meeting in the restaurant, D.A. signed a 
statement written by the investigator who had accompanied 
Birdsall and had videotaped the meeting.  In that statement, 
D.A. recanted her earlier report to the police that N.A. had 
pointed a gun at her and pulled the trigger.  Later D.A. gave 
another statement to the sheriff and apparently recanted the 
written statement she had signed at the restaurant meeting.  
¶9 
The OLR complaint further alleged that because of his 
involvement in this meeting between N.A. and D.A., Birdsall was 
subsequently 
disqualified 
and 
withdrew 
from 
further 
representation of N.A.  N.A.'s successor counsel, however, was 
later allowed to show the videotape of that meeting to the jury 
and N.A. was acquitted on the attempted first-degree intentional 
homicide charge.   
¶10 N.A., however, was subsequently charged and convicted 
of felony bail jumping for violating the "no contact" provisions 
of his bail.  He was sentenced to five years in prison. 
¶11 Birdsall also was subsequently charged with two counts 
of being a party to the crime of violating court orders contrary 
No. 
03-0086-D   
 
5 
 
to Wis. Stat. § 940.48(1).3  Those charges were subsequently 
amended to allege that Birdsall had violated the court's orders, 
contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.48(2) (i.e., contempt of court).4   
¶12 After Birdsall filed his answer to the OLR complaint, 
Attorney Lance Grady was appointed as referee in the matter.  
Referee Grady subsequently conducted an evidentiary hearing and 
then filed his report in this court which included findings of 
fact, conclusions of law, and recommended discipline.  Initially 
Birdsall appealed from the referee's report but then voluntarily 
dismissed that appeal.  Accordingly, this matter is now before 
this court for review pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). 
¶13 Because there is now no challenge to the referee's 
findings of fact, we will not discuss the referee's 58 separate 
findings in detail.  Based on those findings of fact, the 
referee reached the following conclusions of law: 
1. 
The evidence supports a finding that Birdsall, as 
a party to a crime, aided and abetted [N.A.] in 
the act of bail jumping.  Birdsall was well aware 
of the no contact provisions of the Circuit Court 
orders.  [N.A.] informed him that he wanted to 
                                                 
3 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 1999-2000 version unless otherwise indicated.  
4 Birdsall subsequently pled no contest to the amended 
charges and admitted to contempt of a court order under chapter 
785, 
a 
non-criminal 
violation 
proscribed 
in 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 940.48(2).  Birdsall was sentenced to pay forfeitures totaling 
$2136 in order to make charitable contributions of $930 to 
separate domestic abuse programs.  Pursuant to his plea 
agreement, after two years the case against Birdsall was 
reopened and on June 21, 2001, the charges against Birdsall were 
dismissed because he had committed no further violations during 
that two-year period.  
No. 
03-0086-D   
 
6 
 
attend the meeting with his estranged wife.  
Birdsall then scheduled the meeting with [N.A.] 
which, from a practical standpoint, could not be 
concluded 
prior 
to 
[D.A.'s] 
arrival.  
Furthermore, the meeting with [N.A.] took place 
in a venue where [D.A.] was expected to arrive.  
By these actions, Birdsall committed a criminal 
act that reflects adversely on his honesty, 
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).5 
2. 
The evidence further supports a finding that 
Birdsall assisted [N.A.] in conduct Birdsall knew 
was criminal.  Birdsall was aware of the no 
contact provisions of the Circuit Court orders 
since he represented [N.A.] in these proceedings.  
[N.A.] informed Birdsall he wanted to attend the 
meeting with his estranged wife.  Birdsall then 
scheduled the meeting with [N.A.] which, from a 
practical standpoint, could not be concluded 
prior to [D.A.'s] arrival.  Finally, Birdsall, in 
effect, invited [N.A.] to participate in the 
meeting when he stated, "I think it is clearly 
more useful for you to be here."  It is by these 
actions that Birdsall assisted [N.A.] in conduct 
that he knew was criminal in violation of SCR 
20:1.2(d). 
                                                 
5 The criminal act the referee has referred to is the act of 
being a party to the crime of bail jumping, the offense for 
which Birdsall's client, N.A., was convicted.  Birdsall himself 
was not specifically charged with that criminal offense but this 
court has in the past agreed with findings of referees that 
attorneys have committed criminal acts proscribed in SCR 20:8.4 
even though the attorney has not been charged or convicted of a 
specific offense.  See e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Broadnax, 225 Wis. 2d 440, 591 N.W.2d 855 (1999) (use of 
cocaine construed as a criminal act); In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Sandy, 200 Wis. 2d 529, 546 N.W.2d 876 
(1996) (this court adopted referee's conclusion that attorney's 
use of cocaine with client constituted a criminal act under SCR 
20:8.4(b)); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woodward, 183 
Wis. 2d 575, 515 N.W.2d 700 (1994) (attorney who gave client 
hacksaw blades was charged with aiding client in violation of 
her probation but the charges were later dismissed). 
No. 
03-0086-D   
 
7 
 
¶14 The record supports the referee's findings of fact and 
conclusions of law and we adopt them.  And, as noted, Birdsall 
does not challenge them having voluntarily withdrawn his appeal.  
¶15 With respect to the appropriate discipline to be 
recommended for Birdsall's professional misconduct, the referee 
rejected Birdsall's position that none was warranted or that at 
most, a private reprimand should be imposed.  The referee 
rejected Birdsall's position writing: "Although a lawyer may 
have the duty to zealously defend his client and meet with a 
recanting witness, this duty cannot be elevated over the 
lawyer's duty to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct." 
¶16 The referee asserted that he would be inclined to 
recommend a 30-day license suspension as the appropriate 
discipline but he recognized that the minimum period for which 
an attorney's license may be suspended as discipline for 
misconduct is 60 days.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Schnitzler, 140 Wis. 2d 574, 575, 412 N.W.2d 124 (1987).  
Because the referee was "uncomfortable" with suggesting a 60-day 
period of license suspension, he instead recommended that 
Attorney Birdsall be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct and 
that Birdsall pay all costs associated with this proceeding. 
¶17 Although 
we 
are 
greatly 
troubled 
by 
Birdsall's 
misconduct in this matter and condemn it in the strongest terms 
possible, we nevertheless accept the referee's recommendation to 
publicly reprimand Birdsall for this misconduct.  We caution him 
that engaging in similar behavior in the future on the theory 
No. 
03-0086-D   
 
8 
 
that he is simply "zealously" representing his client, will 
result in more stringent sanctions.  
¶18 The lawyer regulation system in this state has been 
established to, among other things, "protect the public from 
misconduct by persons practicing law in Wisconsin."  See 
Preamble to SCR Chapter 1.  In imposing discipline for 
professional misconduct, this court considers several factors 
including: (1) the seriousness, nature and extent of the 
misconduct; (2) the level of discipline needed to protect the 
public, the courts and the legal system from repetition of the 
attorney's misconduct; (3) the need to impress upon the attorney 
the seriousness of the misconduct; and (4) the need to deter 
other attorneys from committing similar misconduct.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶40, 248 
Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.   
¶19 Under all the circumstances of this case, including 
the fact that this is the first time Attorney Birdsall has been 
disciplined for professional misconduct, and the fact that only 
two counts of misconduct are involved, we conclude a public 
reprimand is the appropriate sanction to be imposed.  We 
reiterate, however, our warning that this kind of misconduct 
cannot and will not be condoned.  
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney John A. Birdsall is 
publicly 
reprimanded 
for 
his 
professional 
misconduct 
as 
determined in this matter.  
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney John A. Birdsall pay to the Office of 
No. 
03-0086-D   
 
9 
 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding as referenced 
above, provided that 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 Attorney John 
A. Birdsall to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended 
until further order of this court.  
¶22 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J., and LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., 
J., did not participate.  
 
No. 
03-0086-D   
 
 
 
1