Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mary K. Biester ( 2013 )

2013 WI 85SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2012AP385-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Mary K. Biester, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Mary K. Biester,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BIESTER
OPINION FILED: October 22, 2013
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2013 WI 85NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2012AP385-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Mary K. Biester, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
OCT 22, 2013
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Mary K. Biester,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report filed by the
referee, Dennis J. Flynn, recommending the court suspend
Attorney Mary K. Biester's license to practice law in Wisconsin
for one year for 30 counts of professional misconduct. No
appeal has been filed so we review the referee's report and
No. 2012AP385-D
recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1 Upon careful review of
the matter, we adopt the referee's findings of fact and
conclusions of law. We agree that Attorney Biester's
professional misconduct warrants a one-year suspension of her
license to practice law. We also find it appropriate to order
her to make restitution and to successfully complete 20 hours of
continuing legal education (CLE) ethics courses. We further
find it appropriate to require her to pay the full costs of this
proceeding, which were $25,584.50 as of April 1, 2013.
¶2 Attorney Biester was admitted to the practice of law
in Wisconsin in 1979 and practices in Beloit. She has no prior
disciplinary history.
¶3 On February 23, 2012, the Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney Biester alleging 16
counts of misconduct. An amended complaint alleging 31 counts
of misconduct was filed on August 15, 2012. Attorney Biester
filed an answer to the amended complaint on September 18, 2012.
On December 18, 2012, the referee granted Attorney Biester's
motion for a stay of proceedings as to Count Two of the amended
complaint.
1
SCR 22.17(2) states as follows:
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. 2012AP385-D
¶4 The final hearing in this matter took place on
February 18, 2013. At that time, the parties presented the
referee with a written stipulation and no contest plea agreement
whereby Attorney Biester withdrew her answer to the amended
complaint and pled no contest to Counts One and Three through
Thirty-One of the OLR's amended complaint. Attorney Biester
agreed that the referee could use the allegations of the amended
complaint as an adequate factual basis in the record for a
determination of misconduct as to those counts. The parties
jointly recommended the referee determine that an appropriate
sanction would be a one-year suspension of Attorney Biester's
license to practice law in Wisconsin. The parties agreed that
if the referee's order staying proceedings relating to Count Two
of the amended complaint was no longer in effect, the OLR was
free to continue the prosecution of Count Two and seek an
appropriate sanction and restitution. The parties also agreed
that any additional sanction relating to Count Two should run
consecutive to any sanctions imposed as a result of the
stipulation and should commence on the day following the last
day of the sanction imposed in the instant matter.
¶5 The referee concluded that the OLR had met its burden
of proof on the 30 counts to which Attorney Biester pled no
contest. The referee agreed that a one-year suspension was an
appropriate sanction. The referee also recommended that
Attorney Biester make restitution in the amount of $900 to one
client, that she be ordered to successfully complete 20 hours of
CLE ethics courses, and that she pay the full costs of this
3
No. 2012AP385-D
proceeding. Rather than detail the extensive allegations and
findings in this matter, we will instead briefly summarize the
six client matters that gave rise to Attorney Biester's
misconduct.
Matter of L.T. (Counts One and Three through Seven)
¶6 L.T. hired Attorney Biester to represent her in a
divorce case in the summer of 2008. Attorney Biester's
nonlawyer assistant, J.M., had L.T. write a $3,500 check to J.M.
for attorney fees. J.M. cashed the check without depositing it
in Attorney Biester's trust account.
¶7 Attorney Biester was experiencing financial problems.
She filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding and her home was the
subject of a foreclosure action. L.T. inherited a large sum of
money. Attorney Biester advised L.T. she should protect those
funds from her husband. In February 2009 J.M. convinced L.T. to
transfer $78,000 of her inherited funds into Attorney Biester's
client trust account for safekeeping. Attorney Biester wire-
transferred over $70,000 from her client trust account to the
bank that held the first mortgage on Attorney Biester's home.
Attorney Biester never notified L.T. of the receipt of L.T.'s
funds, nor did she deliver any of those funds to L.T. or provide
L.T. with a full accounting. The OLR's investigative audit of
Attorney Biester's trust account showed numerous trust account
violations.
Matter of L.R. (Counts Eight through Eleven)
¶8 In July of 2009, L.R. hired Attorney Biester to
represent her in a divorce case. During the pendency of the
4
No. 2012AP385-D
matter $3,886 was forwarded to Attorney Biester, which
represented L.R.'s half of a tax refund. Although L.R.
repeatedly contacted Attorney Biester in the fall of 2009 about
the status of the case, Attorney Biester never responded. L.R.
then decided to represent herself and asked Attorney Biester to
return the case file and the $3,886. In October 2009 Attorney
Biester informed L.R. that police had seized L.R.'s divorce file
since it was part of an investigation by the OLR into the
actions of an employee at Attorney Biester's law firm.
Matter of J.F. (Counts Twelve through Sixteen)
¶9 J.F. retained Attorney Biester to represent her in a
bankruptcy matter in July 2010. J.F. paid a $750 retainer.
There was no written retainer agreement and no receipt was given
to J.F. Attorney Biester requested additional money to handle
the matter, and J.F. paid another $150. Attorney Biester never
deposited the funds into any client account, and no funds were
set aside to pay the bankruptcy filing fee. Attorney Biester
filed a chapter 7 voluntary bankruptcy petition on behalf of
J.F. in December 2010 and filed a request for a waiver of the
filing fee. The waiver of filing fees was denied but options
were given for installment payments. Attorney Biester never
informed J.F. about the bankruptcy court's fee waiver decision.
The filing fee was never paid, and in April 2011 the bankruptcy
court entered an order dismissing the petition for failure to
pay the filing fee. Attorney Biester never informed J.F. about
the dismissal.
Matter of J.H. and D.H. (Counts Seventeen through Twenty-Four)
5
No. 2012AP385-D
¶10 In April 2007 J.H. and D.H. retained Attorney Biester
to represent them in a potential medical malpractice claim. A
contingent retainer agreement was signed calling for Attorney
Biester to receive one-third of any amount recovered. In
addition, J.H. and D.H. paid $1,500 for anticipated costs. The
$1,500 check was deposited into Attorney Biester's client trust
account.
¶11 J.H. and D.H. made multiple trips to Attorney
Biester's office to discuss the case, but Attorney Biester was
never there. Attorney Biester failed to file any malpractice
lawsuit or otherwise advance the claim before the expiration of
the statute of limitations.
¶12 J.M. was authorized as Attorney Biester's nonlawyer
assistant to perform client services to J.H. and D.H. Attorney
Biester failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.M.
was compatible with Attorney Biester's professional obligations.
J.M. took client files and paperwork to her home or other
locations and failed to return them to Attorney Biester's law
office. J.H. and D.H. eventually terminated their
representation by Attorney Biester and requested the return of
their case file materials. Attorney Biester failed to comply.
Matter of J.M. (Counts Twenty-Five through Thirty)
¶13 J.M., Attorney Biester's nonlawyer assistant, hired
Attorney Biester in early July 2007 relating to a financial
matter regarding a loan on a pickup truck with J.S. J.M. and
J.S. signed an agreement whereby J.S. would pay J.M. $7,900 for
a pickup truck, and J.M. agreed to accept the $7,900 as full and
6
No. 2012AP385-D
final payment for the truck. J.M. also agreed to release the
title to the truck. J.S.'s sister loaned him the $7,900. That
sum was wire-deposited to Attorney Biester's client trust
account. Attorney Biester did not notify J.M. of her receipt of
the money. The OLR's audit of Attorney Biester's client trust
account revealed that Attorney Biester used the funds belonging
to J.M. by making disbursements to herself for $5,400 and paying
$400 in office rent. During the course of the representation,
J.M. was associated with the Biester Law Office and engaged in
conduct that was incompatible with the professional obligations
of Attorney Biester, including having Attorney Biester's
business and client trust account checkbooks at her home. The
checkbooks were seized by police in the execution of a search
warrant of J.M.'s home.
Matter of M.W. (Count Thirty-One)
¶14 M.W. hired Attorney Biester to represent her in
custody and paternity matters. She tried without success to
contact Attorney Biester regarding the status of her case. M.W.
verbally filed a grievance with the OLR. The OLR sent Attorney
Biester several letters but Attorney Biester did not respond.
Attorney Biester did finally respond after this court issued an
order to show cause why her license should not be temporarily
suspended for failing to cooperate in the investigation.
¶15 The referee concluded that Attorney Biester committed
the misconduct alleged in Counts One and Three through Thirty-
One of the amended complaint. That misconduct consisted of:
7
No. 2012AP385-D
One violation of SCR 20:1.2(a);2 three violations of SCR 20:1.3;3
one violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)(2);4 three violations of
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3);5 two violations of SCR 20:1.4(a)(4);6 one
violation of SCR 20:1.4(b);7 one violation of SCR 20:1.6;8 four
2
SCR 20:1.2(a) states as follows:
Subject to pars. (c) and (d), a lawyer shall
abide by a client's decisions concerning the
objectives of representation and, as required by SCR
20:1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means
by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take
such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly
authorized to carry out the representation. A lawyer
shall abide by a client's decision whether to settle a
matter. In a criminal case or any proceeding that
could result in deprivation of 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.
3
SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."
4
SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) states a lawyer shall "reasonably consult
with the client about the means by which the client's objectives
are to be accomplished; . . . ."
5
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) states a lawyer shall "keep the client
reasonably informed about the status of the matter; . . . ."
6
SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides that a lawyer shall "promptly
comply with reasonable requests by the client for
information; . . . ."
7
SCR 20:1.4(b) states as follows: "A lawyer shall explain a
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client
to make informed decisions regarding the representation."
8
SCR 20:1.6 states, in pertinent part: "(a) A lawyer shall
not reveal information relating to the representation of a
client unless the client gives informed consent, except for
disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out
the representation, and except as stated in pars. (b) and (c)."
8
No. 2012AP385-D
violations of SCR 20:1.15(b)(1);9 two violations of
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4);10 one violation of SCRs 20:1.15(d)(1) and
(2);11 three violations of SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)e.;12 two violations
9
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) states:
Separate account. 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.
10
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) states:
Unearned fees and cost advances. Except as
provided in par. (4m), unearned fees and advanced
payments of fees shall be held in trust until earned
by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to sub. (g).
Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for payment of
costs shall be held in trust until the costs are
incurred.
11
SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) and (2) state:
(1) Notice and disbursement. Upon receiving
funds or other property in which a client has an
interest, or in which the 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.
(2) Accounting. Upon final distribution of any
trust property or upon request by the client or a 3rd
party having an ownership interest in the property,
the lawyer shall promptly render a full written
accounting regarding the property.
12
SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)e. states:
9
No. 2012AP385-D
of SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a.;13 one violation of SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c.;14
one violation of SCR 20:1.16(d);15 one violation of SCR
(1) Draft accounts. Complete records of a trust
account that is a draft account shall include a
transaction register; individual client ledgers for
IOLTA accounts and other pooled trust accounts; a
ledger for account fees and charges, if law firm funds
are held in the account pursuant to sub. (b)(3);
deposit records; disbursement records; monthly
statements; and reconciliation reports, subject to all
of the following: . . .
e. Disbursement records.
1. Checks. Checks shall be pre-printed and pre-
numbered. The name and address of the lawyer or law
firm, and the name of the account shall be printed in
the upper left corner of the check. Trust account
checks shall include the words "Client Account," or
"Trust Account," or words of similar import in the
account name. Each check disbursed from the trust
account shall identify the client matter and the
reason for the disbursement on the memo line.
2. Canceled checks. Canceled checks shall be
obtained from the financial institution. Imaged
checks may be substituted for canceled checks.
3. Imaged checks. Imaged checks shall be
acceptable if they provide both the front and reverse
of the check and comply with the requirements of this
paragraph. The information contained on the reverse
side of the imaged checks shall include any
endorsement signatures or stamps, account numbers, and
transaction dates that appear on the original. Imaged
checks shall be of sufficient size to be readable
without magnification and as close as possible to the
size of the original check.
13
SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a. provides: Operational requirements
for trust accounts.
(4) Prohibited transactions.
10
No. 2012AP385-D
20:3.4(c);16 four violations of SCR 20:5.3(b);17 five violations
of SCR 20:8.4(c);18 one violation of SCR 22.03(2),19 enforced via
a. Cash. No disbursement of cash shall be made
from a trust account or from a deposit to a trust
account, and no check shall be made payable to "Cash."
14
SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c. states: Operational requirements for
trust accounts.
(4) Prohibited transactions. . . .
c. Internet transactions. A lawyer shall not
make deposits to or disbursements from a trust account
by way of an Internet transaction.
15
SCR 20:1.16(d) states:
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable
to protect a client's interests, such as giving
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and
property to which the client is entitled and refunding
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers
relating to the client to the extent permitted by
other law.
16
SCR 20:3.4(c) provides that 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; . . . ."
17
SCR 20:5.3(b) states as follows: "With respect to a
nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer:
. . . (b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the
nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the
person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations
of the lawyer; . . . ."
18
SCR 20:8.4(c) provides it is professional misconduct for
a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation; . . . ."
19
SCR 22.03(2) states as follows:
11
No. 2012AP385-D
SCR 20:8.4(h);20 and five violations of SCR 22.03(6),21 enforced
via SCR 20:8.4(h).
¶16 In discussing the appropriate sanction, the referee
noted that Attorney Biester engaged in multiple acts of
misconduct that occurred over a period of years. She did not
initially cooperate with the OLR during its investigations. The
referee said the misuse of client funds became a pattern, and
court orders were not followed. The referee also noted each of
the six client matters detailed in the OLR's amended complaint
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.
20
SCR 20:8.4(h) states it is professional misconduct for a
lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a grievance
filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required by
SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or
SCR 22.04(1); . . . ."
21
SCR 22.03(6) provides:
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.
12
No. 2012AP385-D
evidences harm to the client and injury to the integrity of the
legal system in Wisconsin.
¶17 As mitigating factors, the referee said Attorney
Biester appears to demonstrate genuine remorse. She has no
prior misconduct adjudications over a practice career of almost
34 years. The referee said Attorney Biester is taking
responsibility for her actions. The referee noted that during
the period of her misconduct Attorney Biester suffered from
serious physical and psychological issues, and suffered
financial hardship and went through a personal bankruptcy
proceeding. The referee said Attorney Biester has expressed
concern for the victims of her misconduct, and he noted she has
participated in outpatient treatment for her psychological
issues.
¶18 The referee said suspension of an attorney's license
to practice law for any period of time is a very serious
consequence and also acts as a deterrent to others who practice
law in this state. The referee concluded that an appropriate
sanction for Attorney Biester's misconduct was a one-year
suspension of her license to practice law in Wisconsin. The
referee also concluded that restitution in the amount of $900
should be paid to J.F. The referee also recommended that
Attorney Biester be required to successfully complete 20 hours
of CLE ethics courses approved in advance by the OLR and
minimally addressing issues related to office management, trust
account maintenance, responsibility to clients, and compliance
13
No. 2012AP385-D
with court orders. The referee also recommended that Attorney
Biester be ordered to pay the full costs of the proceeding.
¶19 The referee added that, if in the future, the stay as
to Count Two of the amended complaint is lifted and that matter
is prosecuted, that matter would stand on its own and the OLR
and Attorney Biester should not be prejudiced by the decision
made in the instant case. The referee said if Attorney Biester
is subsequently found to have committed the misconduct alleged
in Count Two of the amended complaint and sanctions are imposed,
those sanctions should run consecutive to the sanctions imposed
in this case.
¶20 This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact
unless they are clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are
reviewed de novo. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tully,
2005 WI 100, ¶25, 283 Wis. 2d 124, 699 N.W.2d 882. This court
is free to impose whatever discipline it deems appropriate,
regardless of the referee's recommendation. In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660
N.W.2d 686.
¶21 We adopt the referee's findings of fact because they
have not been shown to be clearly erroneous, and we also agree
with the referee's conclusions of law. As to the appropriate
level of discipline, although at first blush a one-year
suspension may seem to be on the light side for an attorney who
has stipulated to 30 counts of professional misconduct, after
careful consideration of all of the circumstances of this case,
14
No. 2012AP385-D
we conclude that a one-year suspension of Attorney Biester's
license to practice law is an appropriate sanction.
¶22 In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Raneda, 2012
WI 42, 340 Wis. 2d 273, 811 N.W.2d 412, an attorney who was
found to have engaged in 14 counts of professional misconduct
received a one-year suspension. The misconduct included failing
to hold disputed funds in trust, distributing trust funds to
himself without promptly providing a full written accounting to
the person who had ownership of the property, failing to keep
his clients reasonably informed about the status of their
matters, and failing to cooperate with the OLR. The attorney
had been practicing law for nine years and had no prior
disciplinary history.
¶23 In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman,
2009 WI 40, 317 Wis. 2d 215, 765 N.W.2d 788, an attorney who
stipulated to having engaged in six counts of professional
misconduct also received a one-year suspension. The misconduct
included collecting a fee without performing any work, failing
to promptly disburse client funds and provide a full accounting
upon request, and failing to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client. The attorney had been
practicing law for 29 years and had been disciplined for
professional misconduct on four prior occasions, including three
prior suspensions. The attorney's first contact with
Wisconsin's lawyer disciplinary system, which occurred in 1990
when he had been practicing law for 10 years, resulted in his
receiving a one-year suspension for 27 separate rule violations.
15
No. 2012AP385-D
¶24 Since no two cases are precisely analogous, there is
no "standard" sanction for particular misconduct. Nevertheless,
the sanctions imposed in prior cases are instructive in
fashioning an appropriate remedy for the case at hand. Attorney
Biester has admitted to more counts of misconduct than were at
issue in Raneda or the 2009 Mandelman matter. (Attorney
Mandelman's 1990 case, which also resulted in a one-year
suspension, involved roughly the same number of counts as does
the instant case.) As the referee noted, Attorney Biester
practiced law uneventfully for nearly 34 years. Her
professional misconduct occurred during a period where she was
experiencing serious personal hardships. She has accepted
responsibility for her actions and has expressed concern for the
victims of her misconduct. Upon consideration of all of the
facts of this case, we agree with the referee that a one-year
suspension of Attorney Biester's license to practice law in
Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction.
¶25 Because the case presents no extraordinary
circumstances, we further conclude that Attorney Biester should
be required to pay the full costs of this matter. See
SCR 22.24(1m) (supreme court's general policy upon a finding of
misconduct is to impose all costs upon the respondent attorney).
We also agree with the referee's recommendation that Attorney
Biester should be required to complete CLE ethics courses
preapproved by the OLR, and we concur with the referee's
recommendation about future prosecution of Count Two of the
amended complaint, should the existing stay be lifted.
16
No. 2012AP385-D
¶26 Turning to the issue of restitution, the parties
stated in their stipulation, and the referee agreed, that
restitution in the amount of $900 should be ordered paid to
J.F., unless Attorney Biester can demonstrate that that amount
has already been paid. The parties' stipulation points out that
in the event the stay of all proceedings relating to Count Two
is lifted, the OLR may continue the prosecution of Count Two and
seek appropriate sanctions and restitution relating thereto.
The record indicates that the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client
Protection (the Fund) has paid $78,000 to L.T. In the event the
stay of proceedings relating to Count Two of the amended
complaint is lifted, the OLR will apparently be seeking an order
requiring Attorney Biester to reimburse the Fund. Since a stay
of all proceedings relating to Count Two currently remains in
effect, the issue of restitution to the Fund is not before us at
this time.
¶27 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Mary K. Biester to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year,
effective November 25, 2013.
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mary K. Biester shall pay
restitution in the amount of $900 to her former client, J.F.,
within 60 days of the date of this order, or provide
documentation to the Office of Lawyer Regulation that
restitution has already been made.
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of her
reinstatement, Mary K. Biester shall successfully complete 20
hours of continuing legal education ethics courses approved in
17
No. 2012AP385-D
advance by the Office of Lawyer Regulation. The courses should
address issues related to office management, trust account
maintenance, responsibility to clients, and compliance with
court orders.
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Mary K. Biester shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $25,584.50 as
of April 1, 2013.
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution is to be
completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mary K. Biester shall
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been
suspended.
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if in the future, the stay
of all proceedings relating to Count Two of the amended
complaint is lifted and there is an additional finding of
misconduct as to Count Two, any sanction imposed as a result of
that misconduct shall run consecutive to the one-year suspension
imposed by the terms of this order.
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See
SCR 22.29(4)(c).
18