Opinion ID: 1296515
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: office checks

Text: ¶ 26. The referee determined that prior to his suspension, Webster had maintained a business checking account at a local bank under the name of Oltman & Webster, Ltd., Attorneys at Law. That account remained open after his suspension and between June of 1998 and May of 1999 more than 300 checks were drawn on that account. ¶ 27. In his testimony before the district professional responsibility committee, and again before the referee, Webster asserted that his legal assistant wrote all the office checks. He claimed that he was surprised that she continued to use that account after his suspension and imprisonment. Furthermore, he pointed out the Attorneys at Law designation on the checks was in small print. And, Webster noted that he had derived no benefit from the continued use of these checks while under suspension. ¶ 28. Again the referee was not persuaded by Webster's explanations. The referee said that Webster should not have held himself out as an attorney by using those checks even if he derived no legal business from their use; moreover, the referee found Webster's willingness to blame his legal assistant for this oversight to be unacceptable. According to the referee, it was Webster's responsibility to ensure that he complied with the rules governing one whose license had been suspended. The referee recognized that although this infraction, standing alone, would not be terribly serious, it evinced a less than scrupulous attitude on Webster's part toward compliance with the rules governing reinstatement. ¶ 29. On appeal Webster emphasizes the referee's description of this infraction as not being terribly serious. Furthermore, he disputes the referee's belief that he was blaming his assistant. According to Webster, he had instructed his assistant to remove all indicia of law practice including scraping the words Law Office off the window of his office. He suggests that his assistant might have continued to pay the bills with the office checks because it simply escaped her notice and did not occur to her to order new office checks. Webster insists that he was unaware that the checks were used during his suspension and again he points out that he derived no legal business from the use of those checks. ¶ 30. We too are not persuaded by Webster's arguments. We note that these checks were used not only while Webster was in prison, but also after he had been released from prison. At that point, if not earlier, he should have been overseeing the use of the checks in his office. ¶ 31. Moreover, Wis. Stat. § 757.30(3) provides that every person  . . . who in any other manner represents himself or herself either verbally or in writing, directly or indirectly, as authorized to practice law in this state, shall be deemed to be purporting to be licensed to practice law as an attorney within the meaning of this section. We think that using office checks with the designation Attorneys at Law imprinted on themeven if in small printis a representation to the public that the drawer of the check is a lawyer or law office. The referee's findings in this respect are not clearly erroneous. These acts by Webster plus his placing the phone directory advertisement listing his law office before his suspension ended (discussed below) reflect a cynical attitude inconsistent with the high ethical standards we expect from those admitted to practice law in this state. Although these actions might not constitute practicing law, we conclude they refute any claim by Webster that he has met his burden under SCR 22.21 to obtain reinstatement.