Court Opinion

ID: 9405374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 07:18:41.416289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:21.616661
License: Public Domain

2023 WI 56

                  SUPREME COURT         OF   WISCONSIN
CASE NO.:              2022AP12-D

COMPLETE TITLE:        In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
                       Against Brian T. Stevens, Attorney at Law:

                       Office of Lawyer Regulation,
                                 Complainant,
                            v.
                       Brian T. Stevens,
                                 Respondent.

                           DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STEVENS

OPINION FILED:         June 27, 2023
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
   COURT:
   COUNTY:
   JUDGE:

JUSTICES:
Per curiam.
NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:
                                                                      2023 WI 56
                                                               NOTICE
                                                This opinion is subject to further
                                                editing and modification.   The final
                                                version will appear in the bound
                                                volume of the official reports.
No.   2022AP12-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN                          :            IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Brian T. Stevens, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,                                       FILED
           Complainant,                                        JUN 27, 2023
      v.                                                       Samuel A. Christensen
                                                              Clerk of Supreme Court
Brian T. Stevens,

           Respondent.

      ATTORNEY   disciplinary     proceeding.           Attorney's        license

suspended.

      ¶1   PER   CURIAM.     We   review    referee      Sue     E.     Bischel's

recommendation     that    this   court    suspend      Attorney        Brian     T.

Stevens' license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 60

days and impose conditions on his practice of law thereafter.

The referee also recommended that Attorney Stevens be required

to pay restitution to a third party and pay the full costs of

this proceeding.
                                                                  No.     2022AP12-D

    ¶2      Because     no   appeal    has    been     filed,    we   review     the

referee's report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1                   In conducting our

review, we will affirm the referee's findings of fact unless

they are found to be clearly erroneous, but we will review the

referee's conclusions of law on a de novo basis.                         See In re

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶ 5, 305

Wis.2d   71,     740   N.W.2d   125.    The    court    may     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.

    ¶3      After our independent review of the record, we approve

the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and adopt

them.    We agree that Attorney Stevens' misconduct merits a 60-

day suspension.        We also agree that certain conditions should be

placed on Attorney Stevens' license to practice law following

his suspension, though we define them more narrowly than did the

referee.       We further agree with the referee's recommendation

that Attorney Stevens be ordered to pay restitution and the full
costs of this proceeding.

    ¶4      Attorney      Stevens     was    admitted    to   practice     law      in

Wisconsin   in    1995.      His    disciplinary     history     consists      of    a

    1  SCR 22.17(2) provides: "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
                                                            No.   2022AP12-D

private reprimand in March 2020 for his lack of diligence and

lack of communication with a client, and for failing to timely

respond to the subsequent investigation by the Office of Lawyer

Regulation (OLR).     Private Reprimand No. 2020-3.2

      ¶5    On January 4, 2022, the OLR filed a complaint against

Attorney    Stevens   that   alleged    six   counts   of    professional

misconduct.      The OLR's complaint sought a 60-day suspension of

Attorney Stevens' license to practice law.             Attorney Stevens

filed an answer stating that he pled no contest to all the

charges, but disputing       that a 60-day suspension would be           an

appropriate sanction.     Attorney Stevens requested an evidentiary

hearing on sanctions.

      ¶6    Referee Bischel held an evidentiary hearing on October

22, 2022.     On February 21, 2023, the referee filed a report

containing her findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well

as her recommendation for discipline. The referee's report and

the   exhibits    received   at   the   evidentiary    hearing     may   be

summarized as follows.
      ¶7    Attorney Stevens has operated a solo law practice in

Green Bay since 2010.        Before opening his practice, Attorney

Stevens had no experience in running a business, maintaining a

trust account, marketing, tracking hours, or invoicing.            He is a

      2Electronic           copy           available           at
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/33747756407a454038230868267c
21116412201d.continue?action=detail&detailOffset=4.

                                    3
                                                                          No.        2022AP12-D

self-admitted     procrastinator         who    tends   to     put    off        necessary

tasks, including the proper maintenance of his trust account.

    ¶8      This tendency caused problems during Attorney Stevens'

representation of R.K.          In 2013, R.K. retained Attorney Stevens

to represent him regarding injuries he sustained in an accident.

While that claim was pending, R.K. asked an acquaintance, W.B.,

to lend him money, promising he would repay her when he received

a settlement in his personal injury matter.                      W.B. loaned R.K.

$4,000    and   R.K.   agreed    to     repay    her    $4,500       if    he        received

sufficient funds from his settlement.

    ¶9      Attorney         Stevens      drafted        a      promissory                note

memorializing the agreement between W.B. and R.K.                              It included

the following language:          "If settlement funds sufficient to may

[sic]    repayment     are   received,        such   payment    shall           be    through

trust fund disbursement by Attorney Brian Stevens."                                  W.B. and

R.K. signed the note in July 2014.

    ¶10     Attorney     Stevens       also    loaned   R.K.     $700          for     living

expenses while the personal injury case was pending.                             The money
was to be paid out of R.K.'s personal injury settlement funds.

    ¶11     Attorney Stevens settled R.K.'s personal injury claim

with an insurance company for the amount of $85,000.                             On August

4, 2015, R.K. signed a release agreeing to that settlement.                                The

insurance company sent Attorney Stevens a check for the amount

of settlement funds remaining after the payment of subrogated

medical expense claims:         $40,687.

    ¶12     Attorney     Stevens      deposited      that    check        in     his    trust
account on September 15, 2016.                 At that time, Attorney Stevens
                                          4
                                                                            No.    2022AP12-D

had $450 in his trust account.                    Attorney Stevens did not inform

W.B. of his receipt of the settlement funds in which she had an

interest pursuant to the promissory note that he had drafted.

       ¶13    On    November      6,    2016,      Attorney     Stevens       prepared       a

settlement statement and discussed it with R.K., who agreed with

the amounts.         On November 10, 2016, Attorney Stevens disbursed

$28,550      to    himself:       $28,000     for    his     fee     and    $550   for      the

financial     assistance         he    gave   R.K.    during       his     representation.

The sum of $12,587 remained in the trust account; $450 belonged

to Attorney Stevens and the remaining balance was from the R.K.

settlement.

       ¶14    On December 23, 2016, Attorney Stevens made a $200

cash   withdrawal         from   his     trust     account     and       deposited     it    in

R.K.'s prison account.            The sum of $12,387 remained in the trust

account; $450 belonged to Attorney Stevens and the remaining

balance was from the R.K. settlement.

       ¶15    On    May    4,    2017,    Attorney      Stevens          issued    a   trust

account check to R.K. in the amount of $7,087.                                The sum of
$5,300 remained in the trust account; $450 belonged to Attorney

Stevens and the remaining balance was from the R.K. settlement.

       ¶16    On April 6, 2018 and May 16, 2018, Attorney Stevens

made additional disbursements from his trust account totaling

$4,500.      Specifically, Attorney Stevens withdrew $3,800 to pay

his own bills or expenses, and he paid $700 to another client as

a refund of her retainer, even though he was not holding any

funds in trust for that client.                    Because only $450 of Attorney

                                              5
                                                               No.     2022AP12-D

Stevens'    trust    account   balance    belonged    to    him,     these   two

disbursements came mostly from R.K.'s funds.

      ¶17   On June 25, 2018, Attorney Stevens deposited $4,500 of

his own money in the trust account. On March 21, 2019, Attorney

Stevens made another deposit of his own funds ($2,464.35) into

his trust account.

      ¶18   On July 12, 2019, Attorney Stevens disbursed $565 from

his trust account to a client for whom he was not holding any

funds in trust. On November 5, 2019, Attorney Stevens disbursed

$1,645 to a different client for whom he was also not holding

any funds in trust. Attorney Stevens used his own funds for both

disbursements from his trust account.

      ¶19   On January 23, 2020, R.K. filed a grievance with the

OLR   against   Attorney    Stevens   regarding      his    handling    of   the

personal injury settlement funds.

      ¶20   On March 15, 2020, Attorney Stevens disbursed $4,500

to R.K. via a trust account check.           At the evidentiary hearing,

Attorney Stevens explained that he knew he was holding $4,500
for W.B. pursuant to the promissory note he had drafted, but

after making minimal and unsuccessful efforts to find contact

information for W.B., Attorney Stevens decided to send R.K. the

money in the hope that doing so would "fix things."                Ultimately,

Attorney Stevens never disbursed any funds to W.B. as required

under the promissory note, and W.B. has never received any of

the funds due under the note.

      ¶21   During    its   investigation,     the    OLR    asked     Attorney
Stevens to produce the internal records he maintained for his
                                      6
                                                                         No.   2022AP12-D

trust account (e.g. a transaction register or individual client

ledger). Attorney Stevens did not do so but instead requested

copies of transaction records and cancelled checks from his bank

in order to reconstruct how he handled his trust account funds.

    ¶22        During      proceedings        before     the      referee,      Attorney

Stevens       did    not    contest,    and       the   referee    determined,         that

Attorney       Stevens'      behavior     amounted        to    numerous       forms    of

professional misconduct; specifically:

              Count 1:      Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:1.8(e)3 by

               providing R.K. financial assistance during the course

               of his representation.

              Count 2:      Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(1)4

               by failing to notify W.B. in writing of his receipt of

               the   R.K.    settlement       funds     and    failing    to    promptly

               deliver to W.B. the $4,500 to which she was entitled.

    3  SCR 20:1.8(e) provides: "A lawyer shall not provide
financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or
contemplated litigation, except that: (1) a lawyer may advance
court costs and expenses of litigation, the repayment of which
may be contingent on the outcome of the matter; and (2) a lawyer
representing an indigent client may pay court costs and expenses
of litigation on behalf of the client."
    4  SCR 20:1.15 (e)(1) provides: "Upon receiving funds or
other property in which a client has an interest, or in which a
lawyer has received notice that a 3rd party has an interest
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or contract, the
lawyer shall promptly notify the client or 3rd party in writing.
Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or
by agreement with the client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver
to the client or 3rd party any funds or other property that the
client or 3rd party is entitled to receive."

                                              7
                                                                No.   2022AP12-D

           Count 3:   Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1)5

            by   failing   to   hold   W.B.'s   and/or    R.K.'s      funds   in

            trust.

           Count 4:   Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:8.4(c)6 by

            converting W.B.'s and/or R.K.'s funds to his own use

            or for the benefit of third parties.

           Count 5:   Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(3)7

            by   commingling    his    own   funds   in   his   client    trust

            account.

           Count 6:   Attorney Stevens violated SCR 20:1.15(g)(1)8

            by failing to maintain and preserve complete records

            of trust account funds.

    5  SCR 20:1.15 (b)(1) provides: "A lawyer shall hold in
trust, separate from the lawyer's own property, that property of
clients and 3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in
connection with a representation. All funds of clients and 3rd
parties paid to a lawyer or law firm in connection with a
representation shall be deposited in one or more identifiable
trust accounts."
    6  SCR 20:8.4 (c) provides: "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation."
    7  SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) provides: "No funds belonging to a
lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient to pay
monthly account service charges, may be deposited or retained in
a trust account.   Each lawyer or law firm that receives trust
funds shall maintain at least one draft account, other than the
trust account, for funds received and disbursed other than in a
trust capacity, which shall be entitled 'Business Account,'
'Office Account,' 'Operating Account,' or words of similar
import."

                                       8
                                                                             No.    2022AP12-D

      ¶23        In her report, the referee recommended that the court

suspend Attorney Stevens' license for 60 days (the suspension

length requested by the OLR), as opposed to the sanction that

Attorney         Stevens        claimed       was        appropriate    in    post-hearing

briefing (a public reprimand).                      In making this recommendation,

the     referee      considered           a    number        of   aggravating       factors,

including         Attorney       Stevens'       "persistent        procrastination            and

failure to perform even the most basic administrative duties for

many,      many    years,"       resulting          in    administrative      "chaos"         and

"massive disorganization" in his office; his tendency to try to

justify or blame others for decisions he makes that violate his

professional        duties;       his     seeming        inability     to   understand        the

harm caused by his failure to attend to his professional duties;

and       his     apparent        belief       that        procrastination         and    poor

administrative management are inevitable facets of his practice.

      ¶24        The referee considered several cases cited by the OLR

in support of its request for a 60-day suspension.                             The referee

found      one    case     to    be     particularly         instructive.          In    In    re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Zenor, 2021 WI 77, 399 Wis. 2d

326, 964 N.W.2d 775, the court imposed a 60-day suspension on an

      8SCR 20:1.15 (g)(1) provides: "A lawyer shall maintain and
preserve complete records of trust account funds, all deposits
and disbursements, and other trust property and shall preserve
those records for at least six years after the date of
termination of the representation. Electronic records shall be
backed up by an appropriate storage device.       The office of
lawyer regulation shall publish guidelines for trust account
record keeping."

                                                9
                                                                       No.       2022AP12-D

attorney with no previous discipline who failed to timely pay

settlement funds to two entities owed money by her client for

services related to the dispute; the attorney allowed more than

five years to elapse before paying the entities' claims.                               The

attorney also converted funds in her trust account for her own

use    and     failed      to     respond     to    the   client's     requests        for

information.         Given the 60-day suspension imposed in Zenor, and

given the need to "sufficiently motivate [Attorney] Stevens to

make the difficult changes he needs to make to prevent further

violations," the referee agreed with the OLR's recommendation

that a 60-day suspension was appropriate.

       ¶25     The referee also recommended that this court impose a

variety      of   conditions       on    Attorney    Stevens'    practice        of   law;

namely,       that   he    be     required     to   "participate       in    individual

counseling, fully cooperate with a mentor, participate in any

and all available education pertaining to Supreme Court Rules,

and provide complete and accurate trust account records to OLR

on a quarterly basis."                  The referee explained that Attorney
Stevens'      "procrastination          and    anxiety    over   his    inability       to

manage his business are at the root of his past behavior and

will   continue      to    impact       his   professional    responsibilities          if

left unattended."              "[A]bsent a great deal of intervention," the

referee wrote, "there is a high likelihood [Attorney] Stevens

will continue to violate the [rules of professional conduct]."

       ¶26     Finally, the referee recommended that the court impose

the    full    costs      of    this    disciplinary      proceeding        on   Attorney
Stevens, and order him to pay $4,500 in restitution to W.B., as
                                              10
                                                                         No.   2022AP12-D

that amount "is more than 6 years overdue and should be paid

promptly."

      ¶27    Attorney     Stevens        did    not    appeal    from   the    referee's

report and recommendation.                 Thus, we proceed with our review of

the matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).

      ¶28    There is no showing that any of the referee's findings

of   fact——derived       from      the     OLR's     complaint,     Attorney    Stevens'

answer, and the evidentiary hearing——are clearly erroneous, so

we   adopt     them.         We     also    agree      with   the     referee's     legal

conclusions     that     Attorney        Stevens      violated    the   Supreme     Court

Rules noted above.

      ¶29    The only issue in dispute before the referee concerned

the appropriate sanction for Attorney Stevens' misconduct.                               We

agree with the referee that a 60-day suspension is in order.

Attorney Stevens has already received a private reprimand for

lack of diligence and lack of communication with a client.                                A

60-day      suspension       for    similar         unprofessional      conduct     is    a

reasonable next step in the progressive discipline process, and
one that is readily supported by precedent.                       See Zenor, 399 Wis.

2d 326 (discussed above); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against

Sarbacker, 2017 WI 86, 377 Wis. 2d 484, 901 N.W.2d 373 (attorney

with two previous private reprimands suspended for 60 days based

on   six     counts     of        misconduct,        including      failing    to    hold

garnishment funds belonging to clients in a trust account and

misappropriating       approximately           $2,000    of   those     funds);     In   re

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bartz, 2015 WI 61, 362 Wis. 2d
752, 864 N.W.2d 881 (attorney with previous private reprimand
                                               11
                                                                            No.      2022AP12-D

suspended    for    60    days       based     on      five    counts      of    misconduct,

including failing to disburse settlement funds and failing to

cooperate with an OLR investigation).

      ¶30   Like    the       referee,    we       believe      that     Attorney      Stevens

needs   training    to        help   ensure       that    he    will     comply      with    his

professional duties when he resumes his law practice.                                 See SCR

21.16(1m)(d) (professional discipline may include the imposition

of   conditions     on    the    attorney's            continued     practice        of    law).

Worryingly, the referee found that Attorney Stevens "does not

correlate his failure to handle the 'business' aspects of his

practice with the requirement he understand and follow the Rules

of   Professional        Responsibility."                To    aid      Attorney      Stevens'

understanding that he is ethically obligated to manage entrusted

funds   properly,        we    require       that,       before      resuming        practice,

Attorney    Stevens       must       attend       a    minimum     of     seven      hours    of

continuing legal education in trust account management and law

practice management, to be approved and monitored by the OLR for

compliance.
      ¶31   Given    the       referee's       stated         concerns     about      Attorney

Stevens'    persistent         pattern       of       procrastination,          we   are     also

convinced that more is needed than a few hours of instruction to

ensure that    he manages            entrusted funds correctly.                      Like the

referee, we believe that Attorney Stevens would benefit from a

level of supervision that has been absent in his solo practice.

We therefore require that, before resuming practice, Attorney

Stevens must identify an attorney approved by the OLR who will
monitor his practice of law for a period of two years after he
                                              12
                                                                                  No.     2022AP12-D

resumes practice, unless he is either employed by a law firm or

practicing      with      another      attorney       aware        of       his    disciplinary

history.         Attorney       Stevens     must          pay    any        reasonable          costs

associated      with     such     monitoring.             We     also       require       Attorney

Stevens to furnish quarterly reports to the OLR of activities in

his   trust     account     for    a    period       of    two    years       after       resuming

practice,      including     furnishing         any       and    all    trust,          fiduciary,

and/or business account records requested by the OLR.9

      ¶32      Finally,     we     turn    to        the        subject       of        costs     and

restitution.        It is this court's general practice to assess the

full costs of a disciplinary proceeding against the attorney

being disciplined. SCR 22.24(1m).                    Attorney Stevens has filed no

objection      to   the    costs       requested          by     the    OLR,       which        total

$8,366.07      as   of    March    13,    2023.           We    therefore          impose       them.

Attorney Stevens likewise has made no objection to the referee's

recommendation that he pay $4,500 to W.B. consistent with the

terms of the promissory note he drafted.                               We therefore order

this restitution payment.
      ¶33      IT IS ORDERED that the license of Brian T. Stevens to

practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days,

effective August 8, 2023.

      ¶34      IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, before resuming practice,

Brian     T.   Stevens     shall       attend    a    minimum          of    seven       hours     of

      9Regarding the referee's recommendation that this court
order Attorney Stevens to participate in individual counseling,
we decline to do so, with the belief that the conditions imposed
herein will be sufficient to help Attorney Stevens fulfill his
professional duties.

                                            13
                                                                       No.    2022AP12-D

continuing     legal     education     concerning      the     subjects       of     trust

account management and law practice management, to be approved

by the Office of Lawyer Regulation.

       ¶35    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, before resuming practice,

Brian T. Stevens must identify an attorney approved by the OLR

who will monitor his practice of law for a period of two years

after he resumes practice, unless he is either employed by a law

firm     or   practicing        with   another        attorney        aware     of      his

disciplinary history.           Attorney Stevens shall be responsible for

any reasonable costs associated with such monitoring.

       ¶36    IT   IS   FURTHER    ORDERED     that    Brian     T.    Stevens       shall

furnish quarterly reports to the Office of Lawyer Regulation of

activities in his trust account for a period of two years after

resuming      practice,    including      furnishing      any     and     all      trust,

fiduciary,     and/or     business     account    records       requested          by   the

Office of Lawyer Regulation.

       ¶37    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date

of this order, Brian T. Stevens shall pay restitution of $4,500
to W.B.

       ¶38    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 60 days of the date

of this order, Brian T. Stevens shall pay to the Office of

Lawyer    Regulation      the     costs   of   this     proceeding,          which      are

$8,366.07 as of March 13, 2023.

       ¶39    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment of restitution is

to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer

Regulation.

                                          14
                                                                No.   2022AP12-D

    ¶40     IT   IS   FURTHER    ORDERED    that   Brian   T.   Stevens      shall

comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of

an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended.

    ¶41     IT   IS    FURTHER    ORDERED     that   compliance       with    all

conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.                 See SCR

22.28(2).

                                      15
    No.   2022AP12-D

1