Court Opinion

ID: 9945157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 14:16:39.674251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:23.827751
License: Public Domain

2024 WI 10

                  SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.:              2023AP1032-D

COMPLETE TITLE:        In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
                       Against Paul A. Strouse, Attorney at Law:

                       Office of Lawyer Regulation,
                                 Complainant,
                            v.
                       Paul A. Strouse,
                                 Respondent.

                           DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STROUSE

OPINION FILED:         February 27, 2024
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
   COURT:
   COUNTY:
   JUDGE:

JUSTICES:
Per curiam.

ATTORNEYS:
                                                                     2024 WI 10
                                                                     NOTICE
                                                      This opinion is subject to further
                                                      editing and modification.   The final
                                                      version will appear in the bound
                                                      volume of the official reports.
No.     2023AP1032-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN                                :            IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Paul A. Strouse, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,                                             FILED
             Complainant,
                                                                    FEB 27, 2024
      v.
                                                                     Samuel A. Christensen
                                                                    Clerk of Supreme Court
Paul A. Strouse,

             Respondent.

      ATTORNEY       disciplinary        proceeding.         Attorney's         license

revoked.

      ¶1     PER    CURIAM.   We    review       Referee      V.L.     Bailey-Rihn's

report     recommending    that    the   court    declare        Attorney      Paul     A.

Strouse in default and revoke his license to practice law in

Wisconsin     due   to   professional     misconduct.            The    referee      also

recommends that Attorney Strouse pay the full costs associated

with this proceeding, which are $2,456.45 as of November 28,
2023.
                                                                        No.     2023AP1032-D

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

referee's report pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1

After careful review of the matter, we agree with the referee

that,     based   on    Attorney        Strouse's        failure    to        answer     the

complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), or

otherwise    appear     in    the     proceeding,        Attorney       Strouse     is    in

default.    We also conclude that revocation of Attorney Strouse's

license     is    an    appropriate       sanction           for   his        professional

misconduct.       Finally, we agree with the referee that Attorney

Strouse should be assessed the full costs of this proceeding.

    ¶3      Attorney        Strouse     was       admitted    to   practice        law    in

Wisconsin in 1991.          The most recent address he furnished to the

State Bar of Wisconsin is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

    ¶4      Attorney        Strouse's    disciplinary          history        consists    of

three public reprimands and a suspension.                     In 2010 he received a

public reprimand for misconduct that included failing to keep

clients    reasonably        informed     of      the    status    of     their     cases;

failing to respond to a client's requests for information; and
falsifying a bankruptcy discharge order and failing to clarify

    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.   2023AP1032-D

the origin of the falsified document when asked by the court.

Public Reprimand of Paul A. Strouse, 2010-2.2

      ¶5     In    2011       Attorney   Strouse         received      a     second    public

reprimand for his conduct in a bankruptcy matter which included

a   lack    of     diligence;       failure       to    keep     a    client      reasonably

informed of the status of the case; failing to respond to the

client's     requests         for   information;         and    failing      to   explain     a

matter to the extent necessary for the client to make informed

decisions.        Public Reprimand of Paul A. Strouse, 2011-5.3

      ¶6     In        2015   Attorney   Strouse         received       a     third    public

reprimand for practicing law while his license was suspended for

ten   days       due    to    noncompliance        with         the    continuing          legal

education requirement and failing to disclose to the Wisconsin

Board of Bar Examiners on his reinstatement petition that he had

filed      two    bankruptcy        petitions          during    the       period     of    his

suspension.        Public Reprimand of Paul A. Strouse, 2015-6.4

      ¶7     Attorney Strouse also received a 60-day suspension in

2015 for his conduct in four bankruptcy matters.                                  The seven
counts of misconduct for which he was suspended included failing

      2Electronic           copy           available           at
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/0f7e60648c388d3d3b4f303b074b
786528431d8c.continue?action=detail&detailOffset=9.
      3Electronic           copy           available           at
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/5c5b474d6f7527508222444b5460
4d333d722245.continue?action=detail&detailOffset=15.
      4Electronic           copy           available           at
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/35634b8a622960396f0d5e37813c
2b613c1c1b34.continue?action=detail&detailOffset=8.

                                              3
                                                                         No.    2023AP1032-D

to provide a receipt for or properly safeguard property of a

client or third person; failing to communicate the scope and

basis for fees; failing to consult with a client regarding the

means    by    which     objectives       of    the    representation          were    to    be

pursued; failing to explain matters sufficiently to enable a

client to make informed decisions regarding the representation;

and failing to respond to a client's requests for information.

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Strouse, 2015 WI 83, 364

Wis. 2d 314, 868 N.W.2d 163.

      ¶8      On   June      12,      2023,    OLR     filed   a   complaint          against

Attorney Strouse alleging nine counts of misconduct.                             The first

three counts arose out of his use of another attorney's notary

stamp and his misrepresentations to a court.

      ¶9      In     2014       the     Wisconsin       Department        of     Financial

Institutions revoked Attorney Strouse's notary commission, which

he   had    held     since     1992.      The        revocation    was    based       on    the

administrative suspension of Attorney Strouse's law license due

to   his      failure     to     comply       with     mandatory    continuing         legal
education reporting requirements.                    Attorney Strouse has not held

a notary commission since 2014.

      ¶10     Between approximately January 2017 and October 2020,

Attorney Thomas R. Napierala's firm, Napierala Law Offices, LLC,

shared      office      space      in   Milwaukee,       Wisconsin       with     Attorney

Strouse's      firm.        During      the    time    they    shared     office       space,

Attorney Napierala, who held a valid notary commission, often

notarized documents for Attorney Strouse which related to the
representation of clients for both firms.
                                               4
                                                                              No.        2023AP1032-D

      ¶11      In approximately October 2020, Attorneys Strouse and

Napierala ended their office sharing arrangement and moved their

firms     to    separate           office    locations.               Following      the        move,

Attorney Napierala could not locate his notary stamp.                                           During

OLR's    investigation,             Attorney     Strouse        stated      that     during          the

move from the shared office space, Attorney Napierala's notary

stamp    had        been    inadvertently        packed         with    Attorney          Strouse's

firm's property and was located when the items were unpacked at

Attorney Strouse's new office.

      ¶12      Attorney            Strouse       had          possession        of         Attorney

Napierala's          notary        stamp    no    later        than     November          9,    2020.

Between November 9 and December 6, 2020, Attorney Strouse used

Attorney Napierala's notary stamp to affix Attorney Napierala's

notary    seal        on     two    affidavits         without        Attorney       Napierala's

authorization          or     knowledge.            In   addition,          Attorney           Strouse

affixed        or    caused        his     nonlawyer          staff    to    affix         Attorney

Napierala's          electronic          signature       as    the     notary       on     the       two

affidavits           without        Attorney         Napierala's         authorization                or
knowledge.

      ¶13      On November 9, 2020, Attorney Strouse filed or caused

his   nonlawyer        staff       to    file    one     of    the     affidavits         with       the

United    States           Bankruptcy       Court     for      the    Eastern       District         of

Wisconsin (Bankruptcy Court).                        On December 6, 2020, Attorney

Strouse filed or caused his nonlawyer staff to file one of the

affidavits with the Bankruptcy Court in a second case.

      ¶14      Between        December       10,       2020     and     January          8,     2021,
Attorney       Napierala       communicated            with     Attorney      Strouse           in    an
                                                 5
                                                                              No.    2023AP1032-D

effort to locate and retrieve Attorney Napierala's notary stamp.

Attorney Strouse denied having possession of the stamp.

       ¶15   On approximately December 10, 2020, Thomas D. Vaitys,

an attorney whose Wisconsin law license had been revoked and who

had    access     to    Attorney       Strouse's          new     office     space,      informed

Attorney     Napierala         that     Vaitys         had     found   a    notary       stamp   in

Attorney Strouse's new office space.

       ¶16   On    December          16,         2020,    Attorney         Napierala      emailed

Attorney Strouse asking him to send the notary stamp to him as

soon    as   possible.            On    December          18,     2020,     Attorney      Strouse

replied to the email saying, "I do not have your notary seal."

Attorney Napierala responded by informing Attorney Strouse that

Vaitys had told Attorney Napierala that Attorney Strouse had the

notary stamp. Attorney Strouse responded, "Well then, you know

who has it."

       ¶17   Between December 18 and 21, 2020, Attorney Napierala

attempted to make arrangements with Attorney Strouse to pick up

the    notary     stamp    or     to    have       someone        deliver    it     to   Attorney
Napierala.

       ¶18   On        December        21,        2020,      Attorney       Strouse       emailed

Attorney Napierala saying, "I do not have your notary seal . . .

if [Vaitys] has it, then bring it up with him."

       ¶19   Between       January           3    and     5,      2021,     Attorney      Strouse

affixed Attorney Napierala's notary seal and affixed or caused

his    nonlawyer       staff    to     affix        Attorney       Napierala's       electronic

signature as the notary on three additional affidavits without
Attorney     Napierala's          authorization              or    knowledge.            Attorney
                                                   6
                                                                                  No.     2023AP1032-D

Strouse      filed      or    caused          his       nonlawyer         staff     to     file    the

affidavits with the Bankruptcy Court.

       ¶20   On January 8, 2021, Attorney Napierala emailed Vaitys

and copied Attorney Strouse, saying, "I still need to obtain my

notary seal and I will come and retrieve it."                                 Attorney Strouse

did not return the notary stamp to Attorney Napierala.

       ¶21   Between February 4, 2021 and March 3, 2021, Attorney

Strouse      affixed         Attorney          Napierala's           notary         seal      on   13

additional affidavits without Attorney Napierala's authorization

or    knowledge.           Attorney       Strouse         also      affixed       or     caused    his

nonlawyer       staff        to     affix       Attorney            Napierala's           electronic

signature     on      the     13    affidavits           without      Attorney           Napierala's

authorization or knowledge, and Attorney Strouse filed or caused

his    nonlawyer        staff       to    file          the   13      affidavits          with     the

Bankruptcy Court.

       ¶22   On    or      about     March      3,       2021,      the    Bankruptcy        Court's

Clerk's      Office        contacted          Attorney        Napierala           regarding        his

purported notarization of the affidavit filed that day in one of
the    cases.         On     March       4,    2021,       Attorney         Napierala        emailed

Attorney Strouse about the Bankruptcy Court's contact regarding

the affidavit.          Attorney Napierala advised Attorney Strouse that

Attorney      Napierala's           notary          seal      and     electronic           signature

appeared on a document filed on March 3, 2021 and that Attorney

Napierala       had     not       notarized         anything         that     day.          Attorney

Napierala instructed Attorney Strouse to contact the Bankruptcy

Court to fix the problem, and he told Attorney Strouse that he
would pick up the notary seal.
                                                    7
                                                                No.     2023AP1032-D

       ¶23   On March 4, 2021, Attorney Napierala sent a letter to

the Bankruptcy Court advising that he had not notarized the

affidavit in question that had been filed by Attorney Strouse.

Attorney      Napierala    subsequently       sent   the    Bankruptcy         Court

similar letters regarding affidavits filed on March 3, 2021 in

other cases.

       ¶24   On March 8, 2021, Attorney Napierala went to Attorney

Strouse's new office, and the nonlawyer staff returned Attorney

Napierala's notary stamp to him.

       ¶25   On March 1, 2021, Judge Beth E. Hanan issued an order

to   show    cause   requiring     Attorney   Strouse      to   file    a    written

response explaining why the court should not strike the debtors'

motion to reopen due         to an inaccurate affidavit of service.

Attorney Strouse responded to the order to show cause on March

17, 2021, saying he had an arrangement with Attorney Napierala

in   which    Attorney     Napierala   would    routinely       visit       Attorney

Strouse's office to sign affidavits for various Bankruptcy Court

cases.       Attorney Strouse stated that his "office manager saw
that   the    affidavits    were    already    pre-stamped      and     filed   the

affidavits [in one case] before Attorney Napierala arrived to

sign them" and that Attorney Napierala's signature was affixed

electronically.      Attorney Strouse claimed this was a mistake and

had occurred in multiple cases.

       ¶26   On March 17, 2021, Judge Katherine Perhach issued an

order to show cause requiring Attorney Strouse to appear at a

hearing on March 23, 2021 to explain why the court should not
strike the debtors' motion due to the inaccurate affidavit filed
                                       8
                                                                            No.       2023AP1032-D

in one case, and to explain in writing why Attorney Napierala's

signature and notary stamp appeared on the affidavit.

      ¶27    On March 23, 2021, Attorney Strouse filed a letter

responding to Judge Perhach's order to show cause in which he

provided the same explanation that he had given to Judge Hanan.

That same day, Judge Perhach conducted a hearing on the order to

show cause and questioned Attorney Strouse about the affidavits.

Attorney     Strouse     said     he      had       an     arrangement         with     Attorney

Napierala     whereby       Attorney        Napierala            would      visit       Attorney

Strouse's office to sign affidavits for Bankruptcy Court cases.

Attorney     Strouse     said    that      Attorney         Napierala        would      come   to

Attorney Strouse's new office to sign and date affidavits to be

filed with the court.               Attorney Strouse acknowledged that the

affidavits     filed     on     March     3,        2021    had       not   been      signed   by

Attorney     Napierala        and      that          Attorney         Napierala        had     not

authorized affixing his electronic signature to the affidavits.

Attorney Strouse characterized the filing of the affidavits as a

mistake by his nonlawyer staff.                     He claimed that the affidavits
filed on March 3, 2021 were the only ones he filed which had

Attorney Napierala's notary stamp and signature without Attorney

Napierala's authorization or knowledge.                           Attorney Strouse also

told Judge Perhach that the cases in which affidavits were filed

on   March   3,   2021    were      the    only          ones    in    which    he     filed   an

affidavit that was not authorized by the notary to include the

notary stamp or signature on the affidavit.

      ¶28    On    May    21,       2021,           Attorney      Napierala           signed    a
Declaration       denying       the     existence           of        any   arrangement        as
                                                9
                                                                    No.    2023AP1032-D

described by Attorney Strouse in his written responses to the

court and during the March 23, 2021 hearing.

    ¶29     On June 8, 2021, counsel for the United States Trustee

sent Attorney Strouse a letter inquiring as to whether he had

filed any other affidavits containing improper notarizations or

notary signatures between November 1, 2020 and March 3, 2021.

Attorney Strouse responded on June 27, 2021 and identified 11

additional affidavits he had filed with improper notary stamps

or notary signatures.            He failed to disclose two additional

affidavits       which   also    contained       improper     notary       stamps    or

signatures.

    ¶30     On    August   27,   2021,    counsel       for   the    United    States

Trustee filed a motion for sanctions against Attorney Strouse in

one of the cases pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § § 105 and 526 and Local

Rule Bankr. P. 9029(f).

    ¶31     On November 18, 2021, Attorney Strouse entered into an

amended stipulation with the United States Trustee to resolve

the motion for sanctions.            Attorney Strouse stipulated that,
without Attorney Napierala's authorization or knowledge, he had

retained possession of Attorney Napierala's notary stamp from

October 31, 2020 through March 8, 2021 and had used the notary

stamp     and    affixed    Attorney      Napierala's         signature        on    18

affidavits filed with the Bankruptcy Court.                    Attorney Strouse

further stipulated to making a false representation and false

verbal and written representations to Judge Perhach.                         Attorney

Strouse    acknowledged     that    his       conduct   violated      11    U.S.C.    §
526(a)(2).
                                         10
                                                               No.     2023AP1032-D

      ¶32    On December 23, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court entered an

order approving the amended stipulation and suspending Attorney

Strouse's practice before the Bankruptcy Court for a period of

not   less    than    one   year,   effective     January     1,     2022.     The

Bankruptcy Court also imposed conditions on Attorney Strouse's

practice     before   the   court   in    the   event    he   resumed    practice

following the suspension.

      ¶33    OLR's    complaint     alleged     the     following     counts    of

misconduct with respect to Attorney Strouse's use of Attorney

Napierala's notary stamp and his practice before the Bankruptcy

Court:

      Count One: By retaining [Attorney] Napierala's notary
      stamp without [Attorney] Napierala's permission; by
      using [Attorney] Napierala's notary stamp to affix
      [Attorney]     Napierala's   notary   seal   to   documents
      without     [Attorney]   Napierala's    authorization    or
      knowledge; by affixing or causing his nonlawyer staff
      to affix [Attorney] Napierala's signature to documents
      as    the    notary    without    [Attorney]    Napierala's
      authorization or knowledge; by misrepresenting to
      [Attorney] Napierala that he did not have possession
      of [Attorney] Napierala's notary stamp; and by failing
      to disclose to the United States Trustee all of the
      affidavits that [Attorney] Strouse had filed with
      false     notarizations    in   the    Bankruptcy    Court,
      [Attorney] Strouse, in each instance, violated SCR
      20:8.4(c).5

      Count Two:   By filing or causing his nonlawyer staff
      to file at least 18 affidavits with the Bankruptcy
      Court containing false statements that each affidavit
      had been sworn before [Attorney] Napierala and that
      [Attorney] Napierala had affixed his notary stamp and

      5SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation."

                                         11
                                                    No.   2023AP1032-D

    signature, [Attorney] Strouse, in each instance,
    violated 11 U.S.C. § 526(a)(2) and SCR 20:3.4(c).6

    Count Three:    By misrepresenting to the Bankruptcy
    Court that [Attorney] Strouse had an arrangement with
    [Attorney] Napierala from October 31, 2020 to March 3,
    2021 for [Attorney] Napierala to provide notarial
    services and that [Attorney] Napierala regularly came
    to [Attorney]    Strouse's new office to notarize
    documents; that the affidavits [Attorney] Strouse
    filed with the Bankruptcy Court on March 3, 2021 had
    been pre-stamped with [Attorney] Napierala's notary
    stamp and his signature was electronically affixed as
    part of the arrangement; that the affidavits filed on
    March 3, 2021 were filed in error by [Attorney]
    Strouse's nonlawyer staff who thought that [Attorney]
    Napierala had notarized the affidavits filed on March
    3, 2021; and that the affidavits filed on March 3,
    2021 by [Attorney] Strouse were the only ones to be
    filed bearing [Attorney] Napierala's notary stamp and
    signature without [Attorney] Napierala's authorization
    or knowledge, [Attorney] Strouse, in each instance,
    violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).7
    ¶34   OLR's complaint against Attorney Strouse also alleged

three counts of misconduct arising out of his representation of

R.C., who hired Attorney Strouse in September 2019 to represent

her regarding claims against her former employer.

    ¶35   On June 9, 2020, Attorney Strouse timely filed R.C.'s
charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC).   On February 4, 2021, the EEOC issued R.C. a

    6  SCR 20:3.4(c) provides:   "A lawyer shall not knowingly
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation
exists."
    7  SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides: "A lawyer shall not knowingly
make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously
made to the tribunal by the lawyer."

                               12
                                                                   No.     2023AP1032-D

notice of right to sue her former employer.                      R.C. received the

notice on February 4, 2021 and had 90 days, or until May 4,

2021, to file a complaint with the court.

       ¶36    On    May   3,   2021,    Attorney     Strouse      timely       filed     a

complaint      in   United     States     District       Court   for     the   Eastern

District of Wisconsin against R.C.'s former employer alleging

that the employer had discriminated and retaliated against R.C.

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), as amended by the Civil Rights

Act of 1991 (Title VII).

       ¶37    After filing R.C.'s complaint on May 3, 2021, Attorney

Strouse failed to timely serve the defendant employer.

       ¶38    On September 23, 2021, Attorney Strouse filed a notice

of voluntary dismissal.           The court dismissed the case the same

day.     Attorney Strouse failed to obtain R.C.'s permission to

file    the    notice     of   voluntary       dismissal.        Attorney      Strouse

incorrectly believed that R.C. had until September 9, 2022 to

refile the case, but the statute of limitations on R.C.'s claims
expired on May 4, 2021.

       ¶39    Attorney Strouse acknowledged that personal and health

problems impacted his representation of R.C.                        No later than

April        26,    2021,      Attorney        Strouse     asserted       that         his

representation of another client was also materially impaired by

his personal and health issues.                Attorney Strouse did not notify

R.C. that his personal or health problems were impacting his

representation of her, nor did he file a motion to withdraw from
the representation.
                                          13
                                                            No.    2023AP1032-D

      ¶40   OLR's     complaint     alleged     the   following   counts    of

misconduct with respect to Attorney Strouse's representation of

R.C.:

      Count Four:     By failing to act with reasonable
      diligence and promptness in furtherance of [R.C.'s]
      interests related to her Title VII claims, [Attorney]
      Strouse violated SCR 20:1.3.8

      Count   Five:     By  failing   to  provide  competent
      representation to [R.C.], including by failing to take
      reasonable steps before filing a notice of voluntary
      dismissal to research and understand the effect a
      [voluntary] dismissal could have on her claims,
      [Attorney] Strouse violated SCR 20:1.1.9

      Count Six:   By failing to file a motion to withdraw
      from his representation of [R.C.] when his personal
      and health concerns were impairing his ability to
      represent   her,  [Attorney]  Strouse  violated  SCR
      20:1.16(a)(2). 10

      ¶41   The final three counts of misconduct alleged in OLR's

complaint arose out of Attorney Strouse's representation of J.H.

and     Attorney    Strouse's     association    with   Thomas    D.   Vaitys.

Vaitys' license to practice law in Wisconsin was suspended in

October 2018 due to his failure to pay State Bar dues or file a

      8SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client."
      9SCR 20:1.1 provides:   "A lawyer shall provide competent
representation to a client.    Competent representation requires
the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation
reasonably necessary for the representation."

       SCR 20:1.16(a)(2) provides:
      10                              "Except as stated in par.
(c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where
representation   has    commenced,  shall   withdraw   from   the
representation of a client if the client persists in a course of
action   involving   the   lawyer's services   that  the   lawyer
reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent."

                                       14
                                                                         No.     2023AP1032-D

trust account certification certificate.                        Vaitys' license was

not reinstated.          On August 22, 2019, this court revoked Vaitys'

license     to    practice       law   in    Wisconsin        due   to    misconduct      in

unrelated        matters.        In    re    Disciplinary       Proceedings         Against

Vaitys, 2019 WI 85, 388 Wis. 2d 259, 932 N.W.2d 400.                                 Vaitys

will not be eligible to file a petition for reinstatement of his

law license until August 22, 2024.                   See SCR 22.29(2).

      ¶42    Attorney Strouse knew that Vaitys' license to practice

law was suspended or revoked.

      ¶43    Beginning in late 2018 or early 2019, Attorney Strouse

provided office space, office equipment, and other assistance to

two   entities          with     which      Vaitys     was      associated,         Justice

Wisconsin,       Inc.    and     Third      Ward    Consultants,         Inc.      Attorney

Napierala and Attorney Strouse each paid Third Ward $750 every

two weeks for services provided by Vaitys.                               After Attorneys

Strouse and Napierala severed their office sharing arrangement

in October of 2020, Attorney Strouse began paying Third Ward

$3,000 a month for services rendered by Vaitys.
      ¶44    Attorney       Strouse      has       admitted    that      Vaitys,     either

directly or through Third Ward, engaged in law work activities

for Attorney Strouse's firm that are customarily performed by

paralegal        personnel,      including         legal   research,           interviewing

clients,    preparing          discovery     responses,       and   assisting       in   the

preparation of complaints, motions, and other pleadings.                             Vaitys

occasionally met alone with clients, especially when Attorneys

Strouse and Napierala were unavailable.

                                              15
                                                                       No.     2023AP1032-D

       ¶45    Attorney Strouse provided Vaitys with access to one or

more of his firm's email accounts.                    Vaitys responded to emails

from    Attorney       Strouse's       firm's      email     account    on     behalf    of

Attorney Strouse or the firm, without identifying himself as the

drafter or sender of the email.

       ¶46    In      an   email      exchange      from     April     2021,     Attorney

Napierala responded to an email that appeared to have been sent

from Attorney Strouse by asking whether the email had been sent

by "T" or "P," meaning Tom Vaitys or Paul Strouse.

       ¶47    Vaitys drafted all of the complaints Attorney Strouse

filed    on    behalf      of   clients    alleging        violations    of     the     Fair

Credit    Reporting        Act.       Vaitys       saved   the   complaints       on    his

computer and not on a computer networked with the Strouse firm's

computers.

       ¶48    On September 19, 2019, J.H. hired Attorney Strouse to

represent him in a civil case J.H. had filed pro se in the

United       States    District       Court     for    the    Eastern        District    of

Wisconsin.         The suit was against the City of Racine, the Racine
Police       Department,        and   twelve       individual    Police        Department

employees.         J.H. met with Attorney Strouse and Vaitys about the

case every three to four months.                   J.H. believed that Vaitys was

an attorney working on his case with Attorney Strouse.

       ¶49    Attorney Strouse never mentioned to J.H. that Vaitys'

license to         practice law was suspended or revoked.                        Attorney

Strouse was not aware of how Vaitys identified himself to any of

Attorney Strouse's clients, and Attorney Strouse did not recall
"ever having to explain to a client Mr. Vaitys' title or role."
                                              16
                                                                       No.    2023AP1032-D

    ¶50     J.H.    also    attended      meetings      with     Vaitys       alone,    in

which    Vaitys    provided    legal      advice       to    J.H.     and    engaged    in

substantive discussions of evidence, claims, and legal issues

related to J.H.'s case.            On one occasion, Vaitys met with J.H.

to review all of J.H.'s exhibits and evidence, including search

warrants, affidavits, and video footage.                     Vaitys told J.H. that

J.H. had suffered an unreasonable search and seizure under the

Fourth   Amendment    and     that    the      police       officers'       actions    were

unreasonable based on their use of flash grenades when executing

the search warrant.

    ¶51     Vaitys    primarily       drafted      J.H.'s        first       and    second

amended complaints and worked with J.H. to revise and finalize

the first amended complaint.

    ¶52     During    the     time    that      Attorney       Strouse       represented

J.H., Attorney Strouse often fell asleep in meetings or slept in

his office during the day.                If Vaitys was also present for a

meeting, he would continue the meeting with J.H. by himself.

    ¶53     J.H.    often    had     to   call    or    email        Attorney      Strouse
several times before he would get a response.                        When J.H. went to

the office to meet with Attorney Strouse, he would often end up

meeting with Vaitys or a nonlawyer staff member who was working

with Attorney Strouse.

    ¶54     After a September 2021 scheduling conference in J.H.'s

case,    Attorney    Strouse    failed       to   respond       or    have    any     staff

respond to calls and emails from J.H. asking for information

about the case.      Attorney Strouse has admitted that he failed to

                                          17
                                                      No.   2023AP1032-D

respond to J.H.'s requests for information and to take other

actions on J.H.'s behalf.

    ¶55   On January 28, 2022, J.H. filed a document with the

court in which he asserted that Attorney Strouse had "become

non-communicative" with J.H.; had failed to respond to J.H.'s

attempts to contact Attorney Strouse; and had refused to comply

with J.H.'s reasonable requests for information related to his

case.

    ¶56   On January 28, 2022, Attorney Strouse filed a motion

to withdraw from representing J.H.         In the motion, Attorney

Strouse cited SCR 20:1.16(a)(2) and asserted that his physical

and mental condition had materially impaired his representation

of J.H. and that he was no longer capable of representing J.H.

Attorney Strouse referred to a number of personal, medical, and

financial difficulties that occurred between December 2019 and

January 28, 2022, including that he was being treated for severe

depression and anxiety.

    ¶57   The     court   granted   Attorney   Strouse's    motion   to
withdraw on February 9, 2022.

    ¶58   OLR's    complaint   alleged   the   following    counts   of

misconduct with respect to Attorney Strouse's representation of

J.H. and his association with Vaitys:

    Count Seven:  By assisting, facilitating, or allowing
    Thomas Vaitys to practice law and/or perform law work
    activities at a time when Vaitys' license to practice
    law was suspended or revoked, [Attorney] Strouse

                                    18
                                                                    No.   2023AP1032-D

    violated SCR 20:8.4(a),11 via SCR 22.26(2)12 and/or SCR
    20:5.5(a)(2).13

    Count Eight:     By failing to respond to [J.H.'s]
    reasonable   requests   for   information, [Attorney]
    Strouse violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4). 14

    Count Nine:      If [Attorney] Strouse's mental or
    physical condition materially impaired his ability to
    represent [J.H.], by failing to timely file a motion
    to withdraw from his representation of [J.H.],
    [Attorney] Strouse violated SCR 20:1.16(a)(2).
    ¶59     Attorney    Strouse     did     not   file   an    answer      to    OLR's

complaint.       OLR filed a motion for default judgment on August

29, 2023.        Attorney Strouse failed to respond to the motion.

The referee requested input on a hearing date for the default

judgment motion.       Attorney Strouse indicated, via email, that he

was available on October 9, 2023.                 The referee set a briefing

schedule    on   the   motion.      Attorney      Strouse     failed      to    file    a

timely   brief    in   opposition    to   the     motion,     and    he   failed       to

    11 SCR 20:8.4(a) provides:    "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to violate or attempt to violate the Rules of
Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do
so, or do so through the acts of another."
    12 SCR 22.26(2) provides:     "An attorney whose license to
practice law is suspended or revoked or who is suspended from
the practice of law may not engage in this state in the practice
of law or in any law work activity customarily done by law
students, law clerks, or other paralegal personnel, except that
the attorney may engage in law related work in this state for a
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice of law."
    13 SCR 20:5.5(a)(2) provides: "A lawyer shall not assist
another in practicing law in a jurisdiction where doing so
violates the regulation of the legal profession in that
jurisdiction."
    14 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides:      "A lawyer shall promptly
comply with reasonable requests by the client for information."

                                       19
                                                                         No.     2023AP1032-D

appear at the October 9, 2023 hearing.                         The referee recommended

that this court find Attorney Strouse in default.                              The referee

asked the parties for briefing on the appropriate sanction for

Attorney Strouse's misconduct.                  OLR submitted a sanctions brief.

Attorney Strouse did not submit a sanctions brief.

     ¶60     On November 13, 2023, the referee issued a report and

recommendation          reiterating       that       Attorney     Strouse       should      be

declared     in    default;         finding     that     the    allegations        in    OLR's

complaint were true; and finding that the OLR had met its burden

of   proof    as       to    all     counts     of     misconduct       alleged     in     the

complaint.

     ¶61     As    to       the   appropriate        sanction,    the    referee        agreed

with OLR that Attorney Strouse's misconduct warrants the most

severe sanction available, the revocation of Attorney Strouse's

license to practice law.                  In making this recommendation, the

referee noted that the factors to be considered in imposing

discipline include the seriousness, nature and extent of the

misconduct;       the       level    of   discipline       needed       to     protect     the
public, the courts and the legal system from repetition of the

attorney's misconduct; the need to impress upon the attorney the

seriousness       of    the       misconduct;      and   the     need   to     deter     other

attorneys     from           committing       similar      conduct.          The    referee

explained:

     From failing to obtain proper notarized affidavits, to
     then   lying  about   the   circumstances  about   the
     affidavits, to not informing a client that their claim
     has been dismissed, Strouse has not provided the level
     of conduct necessary to be an attorney licensed in
     this state.      Strouse also willingly allowed a

                                              20
                                                                       No.        2023AP1032-D

      disbarred   attorney   to  practice   law   in direct
      contradiction of the relevant statutes prohibiting
      such conduct and failed to keep a client informed of
      his case. Strouse also has an extensive prior record
      of disciplinary proceedings including three public
      reprimands and a 60-day license suspension.

      In short, Strouse has failed to conform to his
      obligations to clients, tribunals and OLR.      After
      three public reprimands and one 60-day suspension for
      much the same type of behavior, Strouse has not
      changed his behavior.
      ¶62   The referee went on to say that although the case

might     present     some       mitigating        factors      based        on     Attorney

Strouse's     alleged        mental     or    physical       disability,            Attorney

Strouse     failed    to      prove     a    causal     connection           between        the

misconduct and his alleged medical condition, so the referee was

unable to determine if that factor would support a reduction in

the severity of the sanction.                     In re Disciplinary Proceedings

Against Davig, 2018 WI 114, ¶40, 385 Wis. 2d 49, 922 N.W.2d 498.

The referee found that Attorney Strouse's overwhelming lack of

candor to the Bankruptcy Court and OLR, along with his previous

discipline, weighed heavily in favor of revocation.                           The referee
also found that it was appropriate for Attorney Strouse to be

assessed the full costs of the proceeding.

      ¶63   Attorney       Strouse     did    not     appeal    from    the        referee's

report and recommendation, so we proceed with our review of the

matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).                  We review a referee's findings

of   fact   subject     to    the     clearly       erroneous    standard.             In    re

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

Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.             We review the referee's conclusions
of law de novo.            Id.      We determine the appropriate level of

                                             21
                                                                 No.        2023AP1032-D

discipline independent of the referee's recommendation.                          In re

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261

Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.

     ¶64    We agree with the referee that Attorney Strouse should

be declared in default.             In addition, we find that the referee

properly relied on the allegations of the complaint, which were

deemed admitted by Attorney Strouse's failure to answer.                             We

thus agree with the referee that the factual allegations                             of

OLR's complaint may be taken as true and that they prove by

clear,     satisfactory,      and     convincing    evidence         that     Attorney

Strouse committed all of the counts of misconduct alleged in the

complaint.

     ¶65    We also agree with the referee that given the nature

of the misconduct at issue, as well as Attorney Strouse's prior

disciplinary record, the appropriate discipline in this case is

to   revoke    Attorney    Strouse's          license    to    practice        law   in

Wisconsin.         Attorney     Strouse's        misconduct      is     disturbing.

Knowing     that   his    notary      commission        had   been     revoked,      he
appropriated Attorney Napierala's notary seal and, for a period

of several months, applied the notary seal and affixed Attorney

Napierala's electronic signature to multiple documents and filed

the documents with the Bankruptcy Court.                      When confronted by

Attorney Napierala, Attorney Strouse lied and said he did not

have the notary seal.         When confronted by the Bankruptcy Court,

he lied again, concocted a bogus story, and claimed Attorney

Napierala had in fact notarized the documents in question.

                                         22
                                                                         No.     2023AP1032-D

       ¶66    Attorney          Strouse       failed       to        provide      competent

representation to R.C. and authorized the voluntary dismissal of

her claim without her permission and without understanding that

the    claim     could     not     be     re-filed       because       the      statute     of

limitations had already run.

       ¶67    Attorney Strouse's association with Vaitys was also

highly problematic.             Attorney Strouse knew that Vaitys' license

to    practice      law   had    been     revoked,      yet     he    allowed    Vaitys     to

perform legal work, including drafting pleadings and conducting

independent meetings with Attorney Strouse's clients.

       ¶68    "Revocation of an attorney's license to practice law

is    the    most   severe      sanction      this      court    can    impose.        It   is

reserved for the most egregious cases."                              In re Disciplinary

Proceedings Against Cooper, 2013 WI 97, ¶34, 351 Wis. 2d 350,

839 N.W.2d 857.           This case fits that description.                      Although no

two    disciplinary        cases        are     precisely       the     same,     we      have

previously revoked attorneys' licenses for somewhat analogous

conduct.       For example, in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Petros, 2021 WI 55, 397 Wis. 2d 447, 960 N.W.2d 426, we revoked

the license of an attorney who had engaged in sixteen counts of

misconduct that included knowingly making a false statement of

fact or law to a tribunal and engaging in conduct involving

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.                             Like Attorney

Strouse, Attorney Petros had been the subject of several earlier

disciplinary        proceedings.           As      we   said     in    Petros,     Attorney

Strouse "appears uninterested in honest, responsible advocacy,
and tends to dodge . . . when called to account for his actions.
                                              23
                                                            No.        2023AP1032-D

Our profession has no place for persons who cannot be counted on

to follow the basic standards and procedures set forth in our

ethical rules."      Petros, 2021 WI 55, ¶29.     Any sanction short of

revocation   would    unduly   depreciate   the   gravity         of     Attorney

Strouse's misconduct.      We also agree with the referee that, as

is our usual custom, Attorney Strouse should be assessed the

full costs of this proceeding.

    ¶69   IT IS ORDERED that the license of Paul A. Strouse to

practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective April 2, 2024.

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

of this order, Paul A. Strouse shall pay to the Office of Lawyer

Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $2,456.45.

    ¶71   IT   IS    FURTHER   ORDERED   that   Paul   A.    Strouse        shall

comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to the

duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin

has been revoked.

                                   24
                                                                No.    2023AP1032-D.akz

      ¶72   ANNETTE    KINGSLAND       ZIEGLER,     C.J.        (concurring).           I

concur in the court's order revoking Attorney Strouse's license

to practice law in Wisconsin.            I write separately to point out

that in Wisconsin the "revocation" of an attorney's law license

is not truly revocation because the attorney may petition for

readmittance after a period of five years.                 See SCR 22.29(2).            I

believe that when it comes to lawyer discipline, courts should

say what they mean and mean what they say.                      We should not be

creating false perceptions to both the public and to the lawyer

seeking     to   practice   law    again.           See    In     re     Disciplinary

Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 WI 39, 391 Wis. 2d 196, 942

N.W.2d 302 (Ziegler, J., dissenting).                And, as I stated in my

dissent to this court's order denying Rule Petition 19-10, In

the   Matter     of   Amending    Supreme      Court      Rules        Pertaining     to

Permanent Revocation of a License to Practice Law in Attorney

Disciplinary     Proceedings,      I    believe     there       may     be    rare    and

unusual cases that would warrant the permanent revocation of an
attorney's license to practice law.                  See S. Ct. Order 19-10

(issued Dec. 18, 2019) (Ziegler, J., dissenting).

      ¶73   I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL

BRADLEY,     BRIAN    HAGEDORN,    and       JILL   J.     KAROFSKY          join    this

concurrence.

                                         1
    No.   2023AP1032-D.akz

1