Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Craig E. Vance , 372 Wis. 2d 39 ( 2016 )

2016 WI 89
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2015AP655-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Craig E. Vance, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Craig E. Vance,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VANCE
OPINION FILED: October 26, 2016
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2016 WI 89
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2015AP655-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Craig E. Vance, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant, OCT 26, 2016
v. Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Craig E. Vance,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report and recommendation
of the Referee Richard M. Esenberg that the license of Craig E.
Vance to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for nine months
as discipline for professional misconduct. The referee's
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation for a
nine-month suspension were based on the parties' stipulation.
¶2 The complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR) against Attorney Vance asserted various forms of
No. 2015AP655-D
misconduct, including that he was inattentive to a number of
client matters; failed to cooperate with OLR investigations;
failed to inform clients, opposing counsel, and the courts of
his temporary license suspension; and continued to practice law
after his temporary license suspension. The OLR complaint
asserted, the parties stipulated, and the referee found, that
Attorney Vance committed 21 counts of misconduct through his
actions and inactions.
¶3 We agree with the referee's determination of
misconduct and his recommendation that this misconduct warrants
a suspension of Attorney Vance's Wisconsin law license for nine
months. We depart from the referee's recommendation that
Attorney Vance should pay one-half of the total costs of this
proceeding; we instead order him to pay the full costs of this
proceeding, which total $2,570.85. Restitution is not an issue
in this matter.
¶4 Attorney Vance was admitted to the practice of law in
Wisconsin in 2002. This court temporarily suspended Attorney
Vance's license on February 20, 2014, due to his failure to
cooperate with an OLR investigation into one of the matters
included in the disciplinary complaint before us. Attorney
Vance's license was also suspended in October 2014 for
nonpayment of bar dues. His license remains suspended to date.
¶5 Counts 1-6 of the OLR's complaint arose out of
Attorney Vance's representation of Z.A. The OLR complaint
alleged, and the referee found based on the parties'
stipulation, the following facts.
2
No. 2015AP655-D
¶6 In March 2012, Attorney Vance filed a lawsuit on
Z.A.'s behalf without informing Z.A. that he had filed the
lawsuit. He later failed to notify Z.A. of a settlement offer
from the defendant. He failed to respond to requests for
admission from the defendant, resulting in the circuit court
deeming the requests to be admitted. He failed to respond to
the defendant's warning that it would seek costs associated with
filing a summary judgment motion based on the deemed admissions
unless he dismissed the case. He also failed to inform Z.A. of
the defendant's warning. He failed to respond to the
defendant's ensuing summary judgment motion, and he failed to
appear at the summary judgment hearing, resulting in the circuit
court granting summary judgment against Z.A. He failed to
respond to Z.A.'s phone call regarding his failure to attend the
summary judgment hearing.
¶7 Z.A. retained a new lawyer, who wrote Attorney Vance
to request a copy of the case file. Attorney Vance failed to
respond to this request, which in turn forced the new lawyer to
recreate the file and pay to obtain copies of documents from the
clerk of court's office.
¶8 Z.A.'s new lawyer filed a grievance with the OLR
against Attorney Vance. Attorney Vance was uncooperative with
the ensuing OLR investigation; he responded to the grievance
only after this court ordered him to show cause why his license
should not be suspended for willful failure to cooperate with
the OLR investigation. After receiving Attorney Vance's initial
response to the grievance, the OLR repeatedly asked him for
3
No. 2015AP655-D
additional information. He failed to respond to those requests.
On February 20, 2014, this court temporarily suspended Attorney
Vance's law license for his failure to comply with the OLR
investigation.
¶9 The OLR complaint alleged, and the referee determined
based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney Vance's actions
in the Z.A. matter constituted the following professional
misconduct:
 Count One: By purportedly believing that not
responding to the defendant's requests for
admission was an appropriate course of action,
without seeking a determination of relief from
the court, Attorney Vance violated SCR 20:1.1.1
 Count Two: By failing to pursue Z.A.'s suit,
including by failing to respond to the
defendant's requests for admission, failing to
respond to the defendant's summary judgment
motion, and failing to appear at the summary
judgment hearing, Attorney Vance violated SCR
20:1.3.2
 Count Three: By failing to inform Z.A. that the
defendant's requests for admission were deemed
admitted by operation of law, and that
defendant's counsel requested that Attorney Vance
voluntarily dismiss the suit against the
1
SCR 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."
2
SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client."
4
No. 2015AP655-D
defendant or face summary judgment and potential
costs, Attorney Vance violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).3
 Count Four: By failing to provide Z.A.'s file to
successor counsel, causing Z.A. and successor
counsel to have to reassemble a file with copies
produced by the circuit court at a cost, Attorney
Vance violated SCR 20:1.16(d)4
 Count Five: By failing to timely file an initial
written response to the grievance against him,
and by doing so only after being ordered to show
cause by the Supreme Court, Attorney Vance
violated SCR 22.03(2)5 and SCR 22.03(6)6 enforced
via SCR 20:8.4(h).7
3
SCR: 20:1.4(a)3 provides: "a lawyer shall keep the client
reasonably informed about the status of the matter."
4
SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:
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.
5
SCR 22.03(2) provides:
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
(continued)
5
No. 2015AP655-D
 Count Six: By failing to respond to the OLR's
subsequent request for a supplemental response,
Attorney Vance violated SCR 22.03(6), enforced
via SCR 20:8.4(h).
¶10 Counts 7-8 of the OLR's complaint arose out of
Attorney Vance's representation of D.K. The OLR complaint
alleged, and the referee found based on the parties'
stipulation, the following facts.
¶11 In July 2014, after the February 20, 2014 temporary
suspension of his Wisconsin law license, Attorney Vance agreed
to represent D.K. related to a petition for a temporary
restraining order filed against D.K. Attorney Vance appeared
with D.K. at a hearing on the temporary restraining order. An
individual who assisted the petitioner at the hearing filed a
grievance against Attorney Vance. Attorney Vance failed to
respond to the OLR's requests to respond to the grievance.
¶12 The OLR complaint alleged, and the referee determined
based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney Vance's actions
questions, furnish documents, and present any
information deemed relevant to the investigation.
6
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."
7
SCR 20:8.4(h) provides: "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(6), or SCR
22.04(1)."
6
No. 2015AP655-D
in the D.K. matter constituted the following professional
misconduct:
 Count Seven: By accepting a new matter and
appearing in court to represent D.K. at a hearing
on the temporary restraining order while his
license was suspended, Attorney Vance violated
SCR 22.26(2),8 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f).9
 Count Eight: By failing to file a response to
the grievance investigation relating to his
representation of D.K., Attorney Vance violated
SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR
20:8.4(h).
¶13 Counts 9-12 of the OLR's complaint arose out of
Attorney Vance's representation of R.K. The OLR complaint
alleged, and the referee found based on the parties'
stipulation, the following facts.
¶14 In April 2013, Attorney Vance filed a lawsuit on
R.K.'s behalf. After Attorney Vance failed to disclose expert
and lay witnesses and provide expert reports by a court-ordered
deadline in August 2013, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss
8
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.
9
SCR 20:8.4(f) provides: "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to: . . . violate a statute, supreme court rule,
supreme court order or supreme court decision regulating the
conduct of lawyers."
7
No. 2015AP655-D
the case due to Attorney Vance's failure to prosecute it. In
January 2014, the circuit court held a hearing on the
defendant's motion to dismiss. Attorney Vance appeared at the
hearing. The circuit court held its decision on the defendant's
motion to dismiss in abeyance and allowed Attorney Vance to file
his witness list on the date of the hearing. Attorney Vance
failed to inform R.K. of the defendant's motion to dismiss, the
hearing on the motion, and his filing of a witness list. When
this court temporarily suspended Attorney Vance's law license on
February 20, 2014, Attorney Vance failed to inform R.K.,
opposing counsel, and the circuit court about his license
suspension. Eventually, the circuit court dismissed R.K.'s case
without prejudice due to Attorney Vance's failure to diligently
prosecute it. R.K. learned of the dismissal by looking at
online records.
¶15 R.K. filed a grievance with the OLR regarding Attorney
Vance's representation. Attorney Vance failed to respond to the
OLR's requests to respond to the grievance.
¶16 The OLR complaint alleged, and the referee determined
based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney Vance's actions
in the R.K. matter constituted the following professional
misconduct:
 Count Nine: By failing to advance R.K.'s
interests, such that R.K.'s lawsuit became
subject to a motion to dismiss for want of
prosecution and, ultimately, dismissal by the
circuit court, Attorney Vance violated SCR
20:1.3.
8
No. 2015AP655-D
 Count Ten: By failing to inform R.K. of case
developments, including that the case was subject
to a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution,
that a hearing on the motion was scheduled and
heard, and that he filed a witness list on the
date of the hearing on the motion to dismiss,
Attorney Vance violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and SCR
20:1.4(a)(4).10
 Count Eleven: By failing to notify R.K., the
court, or opposing counsel of his February 2014
license suspension, Attorney Vance violated SCR
22.26(1),11 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f).
 Count Twelve: By failing to file a response in
OLR's grievance investigation relating to his
representation of R.K., Attorney Vance violated
SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR
20:8.4(h).
¶17 Counts 13-14 of the OLR's complaint arose out of
Attorney Vance's representation of L.M. The OLR complaint
alleged, and the referee found based on the parties'
stipulation, the following facts.
¶18 L.M. retained Attorney Vance to represent her in a
matter related to a petition for a restraining order and a
disorderly conduct charge filed against her. In January 2014,
Attorney Vance appeared on L.M.'s behalf at an injunction
hearing. The circuit court granted the injunction. After this
court temporarily suspended Attorney Vance's law license on
10
SCR: 20:1.4(a)4 provides: "a lawyer shall promptly comply
with reasonable requests by the client for information."
11
SCR 22.26(1) Activities following suspension or
revocation provides: "On or before the effective date of
license suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is
suspended or revoked shall do the following: . . . "
9
No. 2015AP655-D
February 20, 2014, he failed to inform L.M., the prosecutor, and
the circuit court about his license suspension. He appeared at
a court hearing on the disorderly conduct charge against L.M.
following his temporary license suspension. He failed to appear
at a later scheduled status conference. L.M. informed the
circuit court that Attorney Vance was not responsive to her and
was not performing his job as her attorney. The circuit court
terminated Attorney Vance's representation and referred L.M. to
the State Public Defender's Office.
¶19 L.M. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney
Vance. Attorney Vance failed to respond to the OLR's requests
to respond to the grievance.
¶20 The OLR complaint alleged, and the referee determined
based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney Vance's actions
in the L.M. matter constituted the following professional
misconduct:
 Count Thirteen: By failing to notify L.M., the
prosecutor, and the circuit court of his
suspension, and by appearing at a hearing when
his license was suspended, Attorney Vance
violated SCR 22.26(1) and SCR 22.26(2), enforced
via SCR 20:8.4(f).
 Count Fourteen: By failing to file a response to
the OLR's grievance investigation relating to his
representation of L.M., Attorney Vance violated
SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR
20:8.4(h).
¶21 Counts 15-17 of the OLR's complaint arose out of
Attorney Vance's representation of H.B. and M.B. The OLR
10
No. 2015AP655-D
complaint alleged, and the referee found based on the parties'
stipulation, the following facts.
¶22 In April 2013, Attorney Vance filed a lawsuit on
H.B.'s and M.B.'s behalf. Attorney Vance appeared at a
scheduling conference, but then failed to perform any further
work on the case. The defendant filed a motion for partial
summary judgment, and the circuit court scheduled a hearing on
the motion. Attorney Vance failed to file a response to the
motion and failed to appear at the motion hearing. The circuit
court granted the defendant's motion for partial summary
judgment. The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss, and the
circuit court scheduled a hearing on the motion. Attorney Vance
failed to respond to the motion and failed to appear at the
motion hearing. The circuit court granted the defendant's
motion to dismiss. Because Attorney Vance did not respond to
H.B.'s and M.B.'s phone calls and emails regarding the case,
they were unaware that the defendant had filed a motion to
dismiss, and they were expecting their case to proceed to trial
until they received the notice of dismissal from the circuit
court.
¶23 The OLR received a grievance against Attorney Vance
regarding his conduct in the H.B. and M.B. matter. He failed to
respond to the OLR's requests to respond to the grievance.
¶24 The OLR complaint alleged, and the referee determined
based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney Vance's actions
in the H.B. and M.B. matter constituted the following
professional misconduct:
11
No. 2015AP655-D
 Count Fifteen: By failing to file any response
to the defendant's motion for partial summary
judgment; by failing to appear at the hearing for
that motion; by failing to file any response to
the defendant's motion to dismiss; and by failing
to appear at the hearing for that motion,
Attorney Vance violated SCR 20:1.3.
 Count Sixteen: By failing to inform his clients
of case developments, such that they were
expecting their case to proceed to trial up to
the point that they received the notice of
dismissal from the circuit court, Attorney Vance
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).
 Count Seventeen: By failing to file a response
in the OLR grievance investigation relating to
his representation of H.B. and M.B., Attorney
Vance violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6),
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).
¶25 Counts 20-21 of the OLR's complaint arose out of
Attorney Vance's representation of M.J.12 The OLR complaint
alleged, and the referee found based on the parties'
stipulation, the following facts.
¶26 In October 2013, Attorney Vance began representing
M.J. in her divorce and child placement cases. Attorney Vance
continued to represent M.J. after his February 20, 2014 license
suspension, without informing her of the suspension.
¶27 The OLR received a grievance against Attorney Vance
regarding his conduct in the M.J. matter. He failed to respond
to the OLR's requests to respond to the grievance.
12
Note that the OLR withdrew Counts 18 and 19 consistent
with the terms of the parties' stipulation. Counts 18 and 19
involved Attorney Vance's conduct in the M.J. matter.
12
No. 2015AP655-D
¶28 The OLR complaint alleged, and the referee determined
based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney Vance's actions
in the M.J. matter constituted the following professional
misconduct:
 Count Twenty: By failing to notify M.J. of his
suspension, Attorney Vance violated SCR 22.26(1),
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f).
 County Twenty-One: By failing to file a response
in the OLR's grievance investigation relating to
his representation of M.J., Attorney Vance
violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforced
via SCR 20:8.4(h).
¶29 Counts 22-23 of the OLR's complaint arose out of
Attorney Vance's representation of P.L. The OLR complaint
alleged, and the referee found based on the parties'
stipulation, the following facts.
¶30 In April 2014, after this court temporarily suspended
Attorney Vance's law license on February 20, 2014, Attorney
Vance began representing P.L. regarding a petition for a
restraining order and/or injunction filed against him. Attorney
Vance did not inform P.L. that his law license was suspended.
Attorney Vance appeared on P.L.'s behalf at a May 1, 2014
hearing, at which he successfully asked the circuit court for
additional time to review the case. Attorney Vance then
demanded that P.L. pay him $500 in fees to attend the next
scheduled hearing in the matter. P.L. never paid him the fee
and filed a grievance against Attorney Vance. Attorney Vance
failed to respond to the OLR's requests to respond to P.L.'s
13
No. 2015AP655-D
grievance and to the OLR's own inquiry into his representation
of P.L.
¶31 The OLR complaint alleged, and the referee determined
based on the parties' stipulation, that Attorney Vance's actions
in the P.L. matter constituted the following professional
misconduct:
 Count Twenty-Two: By accepting a new matter and
appearing in court to represent P.L. at a May 1,
2014 court hearing when his license was
suspended, Attorney Vance violated SCR 22.26(2),
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f).
 Count Twenty-Three: By failing to file a
response to the OLR's investigations relating to
his representation of P.L., Attorney Vance
violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforced
via SCR 20:8.4(h).
¶32 As mentioned earlier, this case comes to the court on
a referee's report based on a stipulation between the parties.
In the stipulation, Attorney Vance represents that he
understands the misconduct allegations and the ramifications of
his entry into the stipulation. He states that he fully
understands his right to contest the matter and his right to
consult with counsel. He states that he entered into the
stipulation knowingly and voluntarily. He states that he admits
the misconduct alleged in the 21 counts set forth above. The
stipulation also provides that it is not the result of plea
bargaining.
¶33 Based on the parties' stipulation, the referee
determined that the record conclusively established the 21
counts of misconduct described above. Also based on the
14
No. 2015AP655-D
parties' stipulation, the referee recommended that this court
suspend the Wisconsin law license of Attorney Vance for nine
months.
¶34 In recommending this suspension, the referee found
both mitigating and aggravating factors. On the mitigating
side, the referee noted that Attorney Vance has no prior record
of discipline, and that his misconduct occurred during a
relatively brief period of time. On the aggravating side, the
referee found that Attorney Vance "has no excuse" for
"atrocious" conduct, which included disregarding his clients,
the OLR's requests for information, and this court's temporary
suspension order.
¶35 The referee cited two cases that he believed were
particularly analogous to the instant matter: In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Baehr, 2002 WI 17, 250 Wis. 2d
541, 639 N.W.2d 708, and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Hansen, 2009 WI 56, 318 Wis. 2d 1, 768 N.W.2d 1. In Baehr, a
lawyer received a six-month suspension for misconduct, including
failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of
a matter; failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigations;
failing, upon termination of the representation, to take steps
to protect a client's interests; and failing to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
In Hansen, a lawyer received a nine-month suspension for 28
counts of misconduct in four client matters, including failing
to take action on behalf of his clients, failing to keep clients
reasonably informed, failing to properly explain matters to
15
No. 2015AP655-D
clients, failing to cooperate with OLR investigations, and
failing to withdraw from representation when a medical condition
(depression) affected his ability to represent clients.
¶36 Because no appeal has been filed from the referee's
report and recommendation, we review the matter pursuant to SCR
22.17(2).13 When reviewing a referee's report and
recommendation, we affirm the referee's findings of fact unless
they are found to be clearly erroneous, but we 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. We determine the appropriate level
of discipline to impose given the particular facts of each case,
independent of the referee's recommendation, but benefiting from
it. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI
34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.
¶37 We accept the referee's findings of fact, which were
based on the parties' stipulation. We agree with the referee
that those facts demonstrate that Attorney Vance committed each
of the 21 counts of misconduct discussed above.
13
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.
16
No. 2015AP655-D
¶38 Turning to the level of discipline, we agree with the
referee that the proper level of discipline is a nine-month
suspension. The aggravating factors here are considerable.
Attorney Vance's actions show a total disregard of his clients'
needs and objectives, as well as of his obligations as an
attorney in this state. His actions had serious, negative
effects. His indifference to the welfare of his clients and the
status of their cases caused them distress and legal setbacks.
His indifference to the OLR's investigatory process and this
court's temporary suspension order flaunted the authority of
this court and its rules and orders. The mitigating factors are
few. All Attorney Vance has to offset the weight on the
aggravating side of the scale are the facts that he has no prior
disciplinary history and that he entered into a stipulation that
resolves this disciplinary proceeding. Balancing these factors,
we conclude that the recommended nine-month suspension is
clearly deserved.
¶39 We turn now to the matter of costs. Although the
parties' stipulation does not address the issue of costs, the
OLR has filed a statement showing total costs for this
proceeding of $2,570.85 and recommending that this court impose
the full amount of costs on Attorney Vance. In contrast, the
referee suggested in his report that this court should order a
one-half reduction in costs because, in the referee's view, this
case became contested as a result of the OLR asserting two
counts (Counts 18 and 19) that it later withdrew.
17
No. 2015AP655-D
¶40 After considering the OLR's and the referee's
positions on the costs issue, we hold that Attorney Vance should
be required to pay the full costs of this disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney Vance has not demonstrated why we should
deviate in this case from our practice of assessing full costs.
See SCR 22.24(1m). He has not shown that the OLR over-litigated
any part of this case. He has not shown that the two counts
alleged and then withdrawn by the OLR were wholly without
prosecutorial merit; indeed, it is doubtful he could make such a
showing in light of his admission that he did not fully
cooperate with the OLR's investigation into these counts. Given
that Attorney Vance's conduct caused this prosecution to proceed
on all counts, we see no reason to shift any of the costs of
this proceeding to the other attorneys of the state who are
innocent of wrongdoing.
¶41 Finally, we note that the OLR does not seek
restitution. None is ordered.
¶42 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Craig E. Vance to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of nine
months, effective November 30, 2016.
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Craig E. Vance 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.
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Craig E. Vance shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.
18
No. 2015AP655-D
¶45 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See SCR
22.29(4)(c).
¶46 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the February 20, 2014
temporary suspension of Craig E. Vance's license to practice law
in Wisconsin, due to his willful failure to cooperate with the
OLR's investigation in this matter, is lifted.
¶47 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative
suspension of Craig E. Vance's license to practice law in
Wisconsin as a result of his failure to pay mandatory bar dues
will remain in effect until he rectifies this delinquency,
pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).
19
No. 2015AP655-D
1