Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael G. Artery
Citation: 2006 WI 11
Docket Number: 2004AP002022-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 7, 2006

2006 WI 11 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP2022-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael G. Artery, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Michael G. Artery, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ARTERY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 7, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
December 2, 2005   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there was a brief by Michael 
G. Artery and Michael G Artery & Associates, Delavan, and oral 
argument by Edward F. Thompson. 
 
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief by Robert 
G. Krohn and Roethe Krohn Pope LLP, Edgerton, and oral argument 
by Robert G. Krohn. 
 
 
2006 WI 11
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP2022-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael G. Artery, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael G. Artery, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 7, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Michael G. Artery has appealed 
from 
a 
referee's 
report 
concluding 
that 
he 
engaged 
in 
professional misconduct and recommending that his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a period of 60 days.   
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We further 
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Artery's misconduct 
warrants the suspension of his license to practice law for a 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
2 
 
period of 60 days.  We also agree with the referee that the 
costs of the proceeding, which are $5079.20 as of December 12, 
2005, should be assessed against Attorney Artery.   
¶3 
Attorney Artery was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1989.  He has been licensed to practice in Illinois 
since 1972.  He has not previously been the subject of a 
disciplinary action. 
¶4 
In August 2004 the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
filed a complaint alleging that Attorney Artery engaged in 
misconduct with respect to his handling of six client matters.  
All of the matters were criminal cases in which Attorney Artery 
was appointed to do appellate work by the Office of the State 
Public Defender (SPD).   
¶5 
In the first matter, R.B. pled no contest to charges 
of attempted first-degree homicide while using a dangerous 
weapon and attempted battery to an inmate in 2000.  He was 
sentenced to a lengthy prison term.  In April 2001 Attorney 
Artery was appointed to represent R.B. in appellate proceedings.  
From April to June 2001 numerous transcripts were prepared of 
the proceedings.  In March 2002 the trial court held a hearing 
on a sentencing issue and modified the sentences imposed.  
R.B.'s trial counsel represented him at that hearing.   
¶6 
On May 20, 2002, the court of appeals issued an order 
advising 
that 
it 
had 
received 
correspondence 
from 
R.B. 
concerning 
difficulty 
he 
was 
experiencing 
in 
obtaining 
transcripts so he could pursue an appeal.  The court of appeals 
noted that the attorney who had represented R.B. at trial still 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
3 
 
appeared to be the attorney of record, and it denied R.B.'s 
motion to compel counsel to turn over the transcripts.  This 
order was sent to Attorney Artery.  Attorney Artery failed to 
contact R.B. concerning the content of the court of appeals 
order.   
¶7 
On June 26, 2002, the SPD sent a letter to R.B., with 
a copy to Attorney Artery, saying they had received a letter 
from R.B. dated June 19, 2002, requesting information about who 
was representing him.  The SPD informed R.B. that Attorney 
Artery was his appellate public defender and that R.B. should 
contact Attorney Artery.  Attorney Artery did not contact R.B. 
after receiving the SPD's letter.  On December 30, 2002, R.B. 
wrote to Attorney Artery expressing concern that R.B. had 
received no communication or response from Attorney Artery about 
the status of his appeal.  Although R.B. asked Attorney Artery 
to respond, Attorney Artery failed to do so. 
¶8 
On January 17, 2003, R.B. filed a grievance with the 
OLR.  Attorney Artery communicated with R.B. by telephone on 
March 3, 2003.  R.B. wrote to Attorney Artery asking for 
assistance in reducing his felony conviction.  Attorney Artery 
wrote back explaining the only method he could pursue to obtain 
relief from the sentence was to request that the plea be 
withdrawn.  On March 7, 2003, Attorney Artery filed a motion to 
extend the time for filing a no merit notice of appeal.  On 
March 28, 2003, Attorney Artery filed a statement on transcript.  
The final transcript had been filed about one year earlier.  The 
court of appeals extended the deadline for filing the no merit 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
4 
 
report to April 30, 2003.  On April 28, 2003, Attorney Artery 
filed a no merit report with the court of appeals.  After the 
court of appeals granted several extensions, R.B. filed his 
response to the no merit report on July 8, 2003.   
¶9 
On July 9, 2003, the circuit court held a hearing and 
amended R.B.'s judgments of conviction to correctly reflect that 
the attempted homicide was a class B felony.  On November 7, 
2003, the court of appeals affirmed the judgments of conviction 
and relieved Attorney Artery of further representation of R.B. 
¶10 On July 15, 2003, the OLR wrote to Attorney Artery 
asking 
him 
to 
submit 
a 
supplemental 
response 
to 
R.B.'s 
grievance.  Attorney Artery failed to reply.  The OLR sent a 
follow-up letter by both first-class and certified mail.  
Attorney Artery signed the receipt for the certified mail but 
failed to reply.   
¶11 On September 23, 2003, Attorney Artery was personally 
served with a letter from the OLR stating that the OLR would 
seek an order to show cause why Attorney Artery's license should 
not be suspended for willful non-cooperation due to his failure 
to reply to the OLR's letter of July 15, 2003.  On October 2, 
2003, Attorney Artery finally submitted his response to the 
OLR's July 15 letter. 
¶12 The second client matter involved Attorney Artery's 
representation of R.G.  R.G. was sentenced to five years in 
prison for felony theft in May 2001.  A notice of intent to 
pursue postconviction relief was filed on R.G.'s behalf.  In 
July 2001 Attorney Artery communicated in writing with R.G. 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
5 
 
soliciting a response to identify appellate issues.  Court files 
show no activity in the case for about 14 months.  
¶13 On March 6, 2002, the SPD forwarded a letter it had 
received from R.G. to Attorney Artery.  In the letter R.G. 
complained that Attorney Artery had not responded to R.G.'s 
attempts to reach him.  The SPD asked Attorney Artery to inform 
R.G. about the status of the case and to explain to R.G. the 
significance of the § 809.301 deadline.  Attorney Artery failed 
to correspond with R.G. as recommended by the SPD. 
¶14 On August 8, 2002, the court of appeals issued an 
order stating that R.G. had filed a pro se "motion to withdraw 
counsel."  The court sent a copy of its order denying the motion 
to Attorney Artery.  R.G. communicated with the court of appeals 
and indicated he wanted to continue to appear pro se in the 
circuit court because Attorney Artery had failed to take any 
action on his behalf.  In mid-August 2002 Attorney Artery spoke 
with R.G. about appellate issues.  Attorney Artery wrote to the 
court asking for a copy of the transcript of the sentencing 
hearing held in R.G.'s case in May 2001.  Attorney Artery 
received the transcript on August 20, 2002, but did not calendar 
his receipt of the transcript or 
the fact 
that 
R.G.'s 
postconviction motion was due on October 21, 2002.  Attorney 
Artery failed to file a postconviction motion for R.G.   
                                                 
1 Wisconsin Stat. § 809.30 (2003-04) pertains to the appeal 
procedure of criminal cases in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
6 
 
¶15 On October 24, 2002, R.G. filed a pro se motion in the 
circuit court seeking to discharge Attorney Artery as his 
counsel.  The circuit court denied the motion but referred R.G. 
to the SPD for a determination as to whether he was entitled to 
new counsel.  R.G. wrote to the SPD in December 2002 asking for 
a new attorney.   
¶16 On March 18, 2003, R.G. filed a grievance against 
Attorney Artery with the OLR, complaining that Attorney Artery 
had been appointed as his appellate counsel 20 months earlier 
but had made no progress on his behalf.  On May 6, 2003, 
Attorney Artery filed a motion in the court of appeals seeking 
to extend the time for filing R.G.'s motion for postconviction 
relief.  The motion was granted, and the time was extended to 
May 15, 2003.  Attorney Artery filed R.G.'s motion for 
postconviction relief seeking withdrawal of the guilty plea on 
May 8, 2003.  The court of appeals denied the motion on 
September 9, 2003.   
¶17 The third client matter involved Attorney Artery's 
representation of A.S.  In June 2002 A.S. was sentenced to 11 
years in prison for using a dangerous weapon and being a felon 
in possession of a dangerous weapon.  Attorney Artery was 
appointed to act as A.S.'s postconviction counsel in July 2002.  
Attorney Artery received the final transcript in the case in 
October 2002.  On March 28, 2003, the SPD wrote to Attorney 
Artery advising him they had received a letter from A.S. saying 
he had been having trouble getting in touch with Attorney Artery 
for the last five months.  On April 17, 2003, A.S. filed a 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
7 
 
grievance with the OLR alleging that Attorney Artery never 
responded to the SPD's request that he contact A.S.   
¶18 On June 30, 2003, Attorney Artery filed with the court 
of appeals a motion to extend the time to file a notice of 
appeal/postconviction motion for A.S.  The motion was granted, 
and the deadline was extended to July 29, 2003.  Attorney Artery 
did not subsequently file any documents in the A.S. case with 
either the circuit court or the court of appeals. 
¶19 On July 2, 2003, the OLR wrote to Attorney Artery 
saying he had not earlier fully addressed the allegations 
contained in A.S.'s grievance.  The OLR requested that Attorney 
Artery submit a supplemental response to the grievance by July 
16, 2003.  Attorney Artery failed to respond.  On July 18, 2003, 
the OLR sent a reminder letter to Attorney Artery by both first-
class and certified mail saying that his response must be 
postmarked no later than July 28, 2003.  Attorney Artery failed 
to respond.   
¶20 On August 27, 2003, Attorney Artery was personally 
served with a letter from the OLR attaching copies of previous 
correspondence.  On September 3, 2003, Attorney Artery submitted 
a fax response to the OLR's July 2, 2003 letter. 
¶21 On October 1, 2003, the OLR again wrote to Attorney 
Artery and asked him to provide a copy of his entire file, 
excluding transcripts and the copy of the court file that he had 
received from the circuit court.  The OLR also asked Attorney 
Artery to describe the present status of A.S.'s case and to 
describe other activities taken on A.S.'s behalf.  Attorney 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
8 
 
Artery personally signed the certified mail receipt for the 
letter but did not respond.   
¶22 Although the court of appeals extended the deadline to 
file an appeal or postconviction motion to July 29, 2003, 
Attorney 
Artery 
did 
not 
file 
a 
notice 
of 
appeal 
or 
postconviction motion on A.S.'s behalf.   
¶23 The fourth client matter involved Attorney Artery's 
representation of M.D., who was sentenced to six years in prison 
and four years of extended supervision in July 2001 as a result 
of a robbery with use of force conviction.  Attorney Artery was 
appointed as M.D.'s appellate counsel on August 28, 2001.  A 
copy of the entire court file was sent to Attorney Artery on 
September 5, 2001, and transcripts of the circuit court 
proceedings were sent to him from September to November 2001. 
¶24 In the spring of 2002, M.D. wrote to the SPD 
complaining that he had not had appropriate communications from 
Attorney Artery.  The SPD wrote to Attorney Artery asking him to 
inform M.D. of the status of the case.  On June 26, 2002, M.D. 
again wrote to the SPD complaining he had still heard nothing 
from 
Attorney 
Artery 
and 
requested 
that 
new 
counsel 
be 
appointed.  On July 17, 2002, M.D. filed a grievance with the 
OLR alleging that Attorney Artery had never contacted him and 
had allowed the time limits for filing an appeal to expire.  
Attorney Artery finally filed a notice of appeal for M.D. on 
August 13, 2002.   
¶25 On August 30, 2002, the OLR wrote to Attorney Artery 
informing him of their duty to investigate the M.D. grievance 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
9 
 
and requesting a written response by September 23, 2002.  
Attorney Artery failed to reply.  On September 25, 2002, the OLR 
sent a follow-up request by certified mail.  Attorney Artery 
signed the certified mail receipt but failed to reply.   
¶26 On October 22, 2002, Attorney Artery was personally 
served with the OLR's previous correspondence about the M.D. 
grievance and with a cover letter dated October 17, 2002, 
informing Attorney Artery that if he did not respond within 
seven days the OLR would file a motion for temporary suspension 
of his license to practice law.  Attorney Artery submitted a 
written response on October 28, 2002.  He advised the OLR he did 
not contact M.D. prior to August 8, 2002, because of his heavy 
caseload.  He also claimed that his heavy caseload was the 
reason he had failed to respond to the SPD, failed to file a 
timely notice of appeal for M.D., and failed to respond to the 
OLR's previous letters.   
¶27 The fifth client matter involved Attorney Artery's 
representation of S.T., who was sentenced to 36 years in prison 
on a homicide charge and five years in prison on each of several 
endangering safety counts in late 2000.  Attorney Artery was 
appointed to represent S.T. regarding the appeal of his 
conviction on December 12, 2000.  Soon after receiving word of 
Attorney Artery's appointment, S.T. sent Attorney Artery a 
letter asking him to let him know whether he was in possession 
of the trial transcripts and whether he had reviewed them and to 
otherwise keep S.T. informed about the case status.  On November 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
10 
 
15, 2001, S.T. wrote to Attorney Artery asking for an update on 
his appeal.   
¶28 S.T. wrote to the SPD on December 25, 2001.  On 
January 11, 2002, the SPD wrote to Attorney Artery enclosing a 
copy of S.T.'s letter and asking him to respond to S.T. about 
his concerns.  There was no indication Attorney Artery responded 
to that letter. 
¶29 S.T. filed a grievance with the OLR in April 2002 
saying he had heard nothing from Attorney Artery even though 
S.T. had been incarcerated for 17 months.  In May 2002 Attorney 
Artery picked up a trial file from S.T.'s trial attorney.  
Attorney Artery reviewed the file in October 2002.  He sent a 
request to the court reporter asking for portions of trial 
transcripts that were missing.  He received the last of the 
transcripts on October 18, 2002.   
¶30 S.T.'s first contact from Attorney Artery was in the 
form of a phone call in October 2002, almost two years after 
Attorney Artery had been appointed as S.T.'s counsel.  During 
the call, Attorney Artery informed S.T. that he was missing the 
trial transcripts and asked that S.T. be patient with him.  
After receiving several extensions to file a notice of appeal 
and postconviction motion, Attorney Artery filed a notice of 
appeal on S.T.'s behalf on October 30, 2002.  In November 2003 
the court of appeals issued a summary disposition affirming the 
judgment of conviction.  Attorney Artery filed a petition for 
review on S.T.'s behalf, which was denied. 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
11 
 
¶31 The final client matter involved Attorney Artery's 
representation of A.R., who was sentenced to prison for burglary 
and use of a dangerous weapon in late 1999.  A.R.'s original 
appellate counsel failed to file a petition for review with this 
court in a timely fashion.  On August 28, 2001, Attorney Artery 
was appointed to represent A.R. for the purpose of filing a 
habeas corpus petition in this court alleging that prior 
appellate counsel had provided ineffective assistance by failing 
to timely file a petition for review.  On February 1, 2002, A.R. 
wrote to Attorney Artery and described the issues that he 
believed would have merit in a postconviction motion.  In late 
April 2002 A.R. complained to the SPD about Attorney Artery's 
failure to communicate with him.  On May 8, 2002, A.R. requested 
a copy of transcripts from Attorney Artery, and Attorney Artery 
promptly provided them.   
¶32 On May 20, 2002, Attorney Artery and A.R. spoke by 
telephone.  Attorney Artery told A.R. that a habeas corpus 
petition would be filed shortly.  Attorney Artery did not file 
such a petition.  On June 17, 2002, Attorney Artery informed the 
SPD that he was working on a habeas corpus petition.  On June 
19, 2002, the SPD received a letter from A.R. complaining that 
Attorney Artery had not filed the habeas corpus petition.  
Attorney Artery informed the SPD that he would have the habeas 
corpus petition prepared within two weeks.   
¶33 On July 9, 2002, A.R. filed a grievance with the OLR 
complaining that Attorney Artery had failed to file a habeas 
corpus petition, had failed to communicate with him, and had 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
12 
 
failed to follow his directives regarding advancing additional 
issues.  In early October 2002 Attorney Artery contacted the SPD 
and advised that the habeas corpus petition would be filed by 
October 14.  Attorney Artery filed the petition for writ of 
habeas corpus on October 25, 2002. 
¶34 Attorney Artery wrote to A.R. and enclosed a copy of 
the petition for writ of habeas corpus.  In the letter, Attorney 
Artery acknowledged he had not prepared the petition until 
recently, that he waited to file it to see the results in an 
unrelated case, and that he did not inform A.R. of his decision 
to wait for the outcome in the other case because A.R. lacked 
confidence in attorneys.  On December 10, 2002, this court 
granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus but denied the 
petition for review.   
¶35 On November 19, 2002, the OLR sent A.R.'s grievance to 
Attorney Artery and asked him to provide a written response by 
December 12.  Attorney Artery failed to respond.  On December 
17, 2002, the OLR sent a follow-up letter to Attorney Artery by 
both certified and first-class mail.  The certified letter was 
returned to the OLR as unclaimed but the first-class letter was 
not returned.  Attorney Artery failed to respond to the OLR's 
letter. 
¶36 In his answer to the OLR's complaint, Attorney Artery 
admitted virtually all of the OLR allegations.  David R. 
Friedman was appointed referee in the matter.  In his report 
dated March 28, 2005, the referee noted that the main issues to 
be resolved were the factual allegations in the OLR's complaint 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
13 
 
concerning Attorney Artery's failure to cooperate with the OLR 
in its investigation of the A.R. grievance and the appropriate 
discipline to be imposed.   
¶37 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that by failing to communicate with R.B., M.D. and A.R., 
Attorney Artery violated SCR 20:1.4(a).2  The complaint also 
alleged, and the referee found, that Attorney Artery's handling 
of cases for R.G., A.S., M.D., S.T., and A.R. violated SCR 
20:1.3.3  The OLR's complaint also alleged, and the referee 
found, that by failing to consult with, and to inform A.R. 
shortly after their telephone conversation in May 2002 that 
Attorney Artery had decided to delay filing a petition for writ 
of habeas corpus pending the progression of another unrelated 
case when Attorney Artery had previously told A.R. he would be 
filing a petition very shortly, Attorney Artery violated SCR 
20:1.2(a).4   
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and 
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
3 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
4 SCR 
20:1.2 
provides 
in 
relevant 
part: 
 
Scope 
of 
representation. 
 
(a) A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation  . . . and 
shall consult with the client as to the means by which 
they are to be pursued.  A lawyer shall inform a 
client of all offers of settlement and abide by a 
client's decision whether to accept an offer of 
settlement of a matter.  In a criminal case or any 
proceeding 
that 
could 
result 
in 
deprivation 
of 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
14 
 
¶38 The OLR's complaint also alleged, and the referee 
found, that by failing to respond to the OLR's letters in the 
R.B. case, Attorney Artery violated SCR 22.03(4) and (6).5  The 
OLR's complaint further alleged, and the referee agreed, that by 
                                                                                                                                                             
liberty, the lawyer shall abide by the client's 
decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a 
plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and 
whether the client will testify.   
5 SCR 22.03 provides in relevant part:  Investigation. 
 
(4) If the respondent fails to respond to the 
request for written response to an allegation of 
misconduct or fails to cooperate in other respects in 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director, 
or 
a 
special 
investigator acting under SCR 22.25, may file a motion 
with the supreme court requesting that the court order 
the respondent to show cause why his or her license to 
practice law should not be suspended for willful 
failure 
to 
respond 
or 
cooperate 
with 
the 
investigation. 
 
All 
papers, 
files, 
transcripts, 
communications, and proceedings on the motion shall be 
confidential and shall remain confidential until the 
supreme court has issued an order to show cause.  The 
license of an attorney suspended for willful failure 
to respond or cooperate with an investigation may be 
reinstated by the supreme court upon a showing of 
cooperation with the investigation and compliance with 
the terms of suspension.  The director or the special 
investigator shall file a response in support of or in 
opposition to the reinstatement within 20 days after 
the filing of an attorney's request for reinstatement.  
Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme court may 
extend the time for filing a response. 
 
. . . . 
 
(6) In the course of the investigation, the 
respondent's 
wilful 
failure 
to 
provide 
relevant 
information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a 
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 
the matters asserted in the grievance. 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
15 
 
failing 
to 
respond 
to 
letters 
from 
the 
OLR 
requesting 
information in the M.D. and A.R. grievances, Attorney Artery 
violated SCR 21.15(4)6 and SCR 22.03(2).7   
¶39 The 
referee 
noted 
that 
Attorney 
Artery 
denied 
receiving either the November 19, 2002, or December 17, 2002, 
letters the OLR sent regarding the A.R. grievance.  The referee 
noted that the law in Wisconsin is that when notice is sent by 
mail and it is not returned, the presumption is the mail was 
delivered.  See State ex rel. Flores v. State, 183 Wis. 2d 587, 
612, 516 N.W.2d 362 (1994).  The referee noted this presumption 
may be overcome if the proposed recipient denied receipt of the 
                                                 
6 SCR 
21.15(4) 
provides 
that 
"[e]very 
attorney 
shall 
cooperate 
with 
the 
office 
of 
lawyer 
regulation 
in 
the 
investigation, 
prosecution 
and 
disposition 
of 
grievances, 
complaints filed with or by the director, and petitions for 
reinstatement.  An attorney's wilful failure to cooperate with 
the office of lawyer regulation constitutes violation of the 
rules of professional conduct for attorneys." 
7 SCR 22.03 provides in relevant part:  Investigation. 
 
(2) 
Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated unless in the opinion of the 
director the investigation of the matter requires 
otherwise.  The respondent shall fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 
by ordinary mail a request for a written response.  
The director may allow additional time to respond.  
Following receipt of the response, the director may 
conduct further investigation and may compel the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
16 
 
mailing and the issue then becomes "one of credibility for the 
factfinder."  Id. at 613.  
¶40 The referee noted that the OLR investigator submitted 
an affidavit stating she sent the two letters regarding the A.R. 
grievance to Attorney Artery at his office address, which was 
the same address where all other correspondence was sent and 
received.  Attorney Artery submitted an affidavit denying 
receipt of either letter.  The referee said based on Attorney 
Artery's affidavit alone it was difficult to make a credibility 
finding.  The referee, however, noted that In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Kelsay, 155 Wis. 2d 480, 455 N.W.2d 871 
(1990), this court upheld the referee's finding that an 
attorney's refusal to respond to two letters sent by the Board 
of Attorney's Professional Responsibility (the predecessor to 
the OLR) and the attorney's refusal to accept delivery of a 
certified letter violated supreme court rules.  The referee 
specifically concluded that Attorney Artery's claim that he did 
not receive the two letters sent by the OLR was not credible and 
his refusal to claim a certified letter did not provide a 
defense that he had no knowledge of the letters. 
¶41 Turning to the question of the appropriate discipline 
to impose for Attorney Artery's misconduct, the referee noted 
that the case involved 12 different violations of seven 
different supreme court rules.  The referee noted that the OLR 
requested a 60-day suspension of Attorney Artery's license, 
while Attorney Artery requested a reprimand based on the fact 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
17 
 
that he had been practicing law since 1972 and had no prior 
disciplinary history.   
¶42 The referee also noted Attorney Artery said the reason 
for his actions was because he accepted too many appointments at 
the appellate level from the SPD's office.  The referee said he 
recognized that at times an attorney's workload could be 
overwhelming but when that situation occurred the attorney 
should seek assistance to help resolve the problem and Attorney 
Artery failed to do this.   
¶43 The referee said Attorney Artery's failures were 
serious and had the potential to jeopardize his client's rights.  
While the referee said there was no showing that Attorney 
Artery's pattern of misconduct was malicious, he found it did 
represent a deliberate indifference to his obligation as an 
attorney.  The referee pointed to Attorney Artery's willingness 
to admit to the violations and said it appeared Attorney Artery 
understood the seriousness of the misconduct.  The referee 
concluded that a 60-day suspension of Attorney Artery's license 
to practice law would protect the courts and the legal system 
from the repetition of Attorney Artery's misconduct and would 
warn other attorneys not to engage in similar behavior. 
¶44 Attorney Artery appealed, arguing that the evidence 
was insufficient to show that he failed to cooperate with the 
OLR in the A.R. case and that a 60-day suspension of his license 
was unduly harsh.  Attorney Artery admits that he failed to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing his 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
18 
 
clients, but he asserts no actual harm to the clients resulted 
from his actions. 
¶45 The OLR argues that while Attorney Artery's appeal 
focuses on the non-cooperation issues, the far more serious 
issues in the case, which Attorney Artery has admitted, relate 
to his repeated pattern of misconduct, primarily dealing with 
poor communication and lack of diligence as to all six clients.  
The OLR notes that the clients were incarcerated and thus were 
vulnerable.  The OLR asserts that even absent the referee's 
findings that Attorney Artery failed to cooperate with the OLR, 
the 
other 
counts 
of 
misconduct 
would 
still 
warrant 
the 
imposition of the 60-day suspension.   
¶46 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The 
court may also impose whatever sanction it sees fit regardless 
of the referee's recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686.  The referee's findings of fact in this case have 
not been shown to be clearly erroneous, and we adopt them. 
¶47 As the referee noted, the question of whether or not 
Attorney Artery received the two letters from the OLR regarding 
the A.R. grievance required the referee to make a finding on 
Attorney Artery's credibility.  All correspondence from the OLR 
was sent to Attorney Artery at his office address.  Attorney 
Artery admits receiving all other letters, and the A.R. letters 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
19 
 
that were sent by regular mail were not returned to the OLR.  
The referee's finding that Attorney Artery's claim that he did 
not receive the letters was not credible appears to be 
reasonable.  Attorney Artery admits he did not respond to the 
requests for information in the M.D. and R.B. matters until he 
was personally served with the notices that the OLR would seek a 
temporary suspension of his license if he continued to fail to 
respond.  Under the circumstances, the referee's findings that 
Attorney Artery failed to cooperate with the investigation of 
grievances is not clearly erroneous. 
¶48 As to the appropriate discipline, as the OLR points 
out, Attorney Artery has admitted that he failed to provide 
diligent representation to six separate criminal clients.  He 
attempts to excuse his failures by saying he took on more SPD 
work than he was actually able to handle.  We note, as did the 
referee, that Attorney Artery has no prior disciplinary history.  
If he had been previously disciplined, a longer suspension would 
be appropriate.  Under the circumstances, we agree with the 
referee that a 60-day suspension of Attorney Artery's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction for these 
violations.  We also find it appropriate for Attorney Artery to 
pay the costs of the proceeding.   
¶49 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michael G. Artery to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective March 14, 2006, and until further order of the court. 
¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Michael G. Artery shall pay to the Office of 
No. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
20 
 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, provided that if 
the costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a 
showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within 
that time, the license of Michael G. Artery to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
¶51 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael G. Artery 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. 
2004AP2022-D   
 
 
 
1