Court Opinion

ID: 9699481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:27:09.622627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:51.235537
License: Public Domain

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.
¶ 51. (dissenting). Attorney Warren Lee Brandt comes before this court, having been the subject of three prior attorney discipline actions and five operating while intoxicated offenses. In 1994 he received a private reprimand. In 2003 he received a public reprimand, and in 2004 yet another public reprimand.
¶ 52. The first question before the court today is whether multiple convictions for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated represent a violation of former SCR 2Q:8.4(b).1 The majority concludes that it does, and I agree.
¶ 53. I part ways with my colleagues in the determination of the second question, the appropriate level of discipline to be imposed. The majority has determined that the discipline to be imposed here for two more distinct violations is yet again another public reprimand. Because I believe that discipline generally should be progressive and that the discipline imposed here does not adequately address either the nature of the violation or Attorney Brandt's fitness to practice, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 54. The OLR sought a 60-day suspension for two code violations. The referee determined that Attor*285ney Brandt violated former SCR 20:5.3(b) by failing to adequately supervise an employee. For that one violation, he recommended a public reprimand. He further determined, however, that multiple convictions for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated did not represent a violation of the code and dismissed that count of the complaint. The OLR appealed. Although the majority concludes on appeal that the referee was in error and that the multiple convictions for OWI do indeed constitute a code violation, it nevertheless imposes only a public reprimand as discipline to cover both violations.
A. Progressive Discipline
¶ 55. Generally, discipline is progressive in nature. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nussberger, 2006 WI 111, 296 Wis. 2d 47, 719 N.W.2d 501. Admittedly, at times progressive discipline is not appropriate given the nature of the subsequent violation or other extenuating circumstances. A recent study of the OLR reveals that in 73% of the cases where a public reprimand was imposed, a subsequent progressive sanction was imposed. A subsequent progressive sanction was imposed in 83% of the cases involving short suspensions and 80% of the cases with long suspensions.2
B. Severity of the Offense
¶ 56. The record reflects that on October 6, 2003, Attorney Brandt was arrested in Minnesota for third *286offense OWI.3 He was next arrested for OWI in Wisconsin on February 2, 2005, and again on March 14, 2005. Attorney Brandt advances that he should receive no additional discipline for his multiple OWI convictions because he has already received a substantial consequence by serving 185 days in jail and having a restricted driver's license. Apparently my colleagues agree with this argument. I don't.
¶ 57. Although the court may consider the sentence Attorney Brandt received under the criminal law, that sentence is not a substitute for this court's separate inquiry as to the appropriate sanction in this attorney discipline case.
C. Fitness to Practice
¶ 58. Attorney Brandt acknowledges that he is addicted to alcohol. What is of concern to me is that although he has had outpatient treatment, there is no indication in the record that he has ever had inpatient treatment. Given the number of OWI offenses alone, I would generally expect to see an inpatient treatment program in order to maintain sobriety. Of additional concern to me is that there is no evidence in the record, except for his own statements, that he indeed is maintaining sobriety. Without corroboration, I do not find such statements sufficiently reliable.
¶ 59. Attorney Brandt indicates that he does attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, but the extent of his attendance is unclear in the record. He testified that "I go to AA meetings when I think that it's important to impress myself with again putting it to the floor and not being complacent."
*287¶ 60. The Office of Lawyer Regulation asks that we impose a 60-day suspension of Attorney Brandt's license. Given the concept of progressive discipline, the nature of the multiple offenses, and a record that leaves unanswered questions about his sobriety, I believe that the appropriate sanction is in the range of 60 days to six months. I would also require as a condition of the suspension that Attorney Brandt cooperate with any conditions or treatment deemed necessary by OLR. See, e.g., In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings against Fay, 123 Wis. 2d 73, 78, 365 N.W.2d 13 (1985).

 SCR 20:8.4(b) (2006) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects . ..."

 Recidivism & Sanction Study, June 2008 OLR Strategy Meeting, on file with the Office of Lawyer Regulation, Madison, WI.

 Petition to Plead Guilty in DWI Gross Misdemeanor or Misdemeanor Case, File No. TO-03-27682, filed August 28, 2006, Washington County (MN) District Court.