Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Sonja C. Davig Huesmann , 385 Wis. 2d 49 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                                              
    2018 WI 114
    SUPREME COURT          OF   WISCONSIN
    CASE NO.:               2016AP1603-D
    COMPLETE TITLE:         In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
    Against Sonja C. Davig, Attorney at Law:
    Office of Lawyer Regulation,
    Complainant-Appellant,
    v.
    Sonja Davig Huesmann,
    Respondent-Respondent.
    DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HUESMANN
    OPINION FILED:          December 28, 2018
    SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:    September 26, 2018
    ORAL ARGUMENT:
    SOURCE OF APPEAL:
    COURT:
    COUNTY:
    JUDGE:
    JUSTICES:
    CONCURRED:
    DISSENTED:
    NOT PARTICIPATING:   ROGGENSACK, C.J., did not participate.
    ATTORNEYS:
    For the complainant-appellant, there were briefs filed by
    Matthew F. Anich, and Office of Lawyer Regulation, Ashland.
    For the respondent-respondent, there was a brief filed by
    Sonja C. Davig, Holmen.
    
    2018 WI 114
    NOTICE
    This opinion is subject to further
    editing and modification.   The final
    version will appear in the bound
    volume of the official reports.
    No.       2016AP1603-D
    STATE OF WISCONSIN                              :            IN SUPREME COURT
    In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
    Against Sonja C. Davig, Attorney at Law:
    Office of Lawyer Regulation,                                           FILED
    Complainant-Appellant,
    DEC 28, 2018
    v.
    Sheila T. Reiff
    Clerk of Supreme Court
    Sonja Davig Huesmann,
    Respondent-Respondent.
    ATTORNEY     disciplinary        proceeding.         Attorney's         license
    suspended.
    ¶1      PER CURIAM.         The Office of     Lawyer Regulation (OLR)
    has   appealed     a     report    filed   by   Referee       Allan     E.    Beatty,
    accepting a stipulation filed by the OLR and Attorney Sonja C.
    Davig Huesmann1 in which Attorney Davig Huesmann admitted the
    1
    Attorney Davig Huesmann is          also known as Sonja C. Davig.
    She has not, however, officially            changed the name under which
    she is licensed to practice law            in this state.   Consequently,
    this order will refer to her as            Attorney Davig Huesmann.   See
    SCR 10.03(2) and SCR 40.14(3).
    No.     2016AP1603-D
    eight counts of professional misconduct alleged in the OLR's
    complaint.               Referee      Beatty       recommended        that     Attorney     Davig
    Huesmann be publicly reprimanded for her misconduct.                                      The OLR
    argues       that    a     public         reprimand      would       unduly    depreciate       the
    seriousness of Attorney Davig Huesmann's misconduct and that a
    suspension          of    her       license    to       practice      law    in    Wisconsin    is
    appropriate.
    ¶2      Upon       careful         review    of    this     matter,        we   uphold   the
    referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, which were
    based on the parties' stipulation.                         We agree with the OLR that a
    public reprimand is not a sufficient sanction for the misconduct
    at    issue.         Rather,         we    conclude      that    a    60-day      suspension     of
    Attorney Davig Huesmann's license to practice law in Wisconsin
    is appropriate.                 In addition, we follow our usual custom of
    imposing the full costs of this proceeding, which are $10,360.04
    as of May 21, 2018, on Attorney Davig Huesmann.                                    The OLR does
    not seek restitution, and we do not impose a restitution order.
    ¶3      Attorney Davig Huesmann was admitted to practice law
    in Wisconsin in 1994.                     She has no prior disciplinary history.
    She    was    formerly          a    member    of       Huesmann      Law     Office,    S.C.    in
    Holmen, Wisconsin, where she practiced with her then-husband,
    Mark    Huesmann,          until      August       2013.         Attorney      Davig     Huesmann
    currently practices law with Johns, Flaherty & Collins, S.C. in
    LaCrosse, Wisconsin.
    ¶4      Huesmann Law Office, S.C. maintained a trust account
    at Seven Bridges Bank in Holmen, Wisconsin.                                 It also maintained
    a business checking account and business savings account there.
    2
    No.      2016AP1603-D
    ¶5      On    August      15,   2016,       the   OLR     filed    a     disciplinary
    complaint alleging eight counts of misconduct against Attorney
    Davig   Huesmann.         She    filed      an    answer      to   the     complaint        on
    November    4,    2016.          The     parties       filed       a   stipulation          on
    October 16,      2017.        The   following         facts    are     taken     from      the
    stipulation.
    ¶6      On September 13, 2011, Attorney Davig Huesmann entered
    an appearance as attorney for the estate of R.T. in LaCrosse
    county.    She remained attorney of record for the estate until it
    was closed on June 7, 2013.
    ¶7      On    June   4,     2013,    Attorney       Davig      Huesmann      deposited
    over $98,000 in the firm's trust account, which included over
    $68,000 in proceeds from the R.T. estate.                      Between the time the
    money was deposited in the trust account and February of 2014,
    Attorney    Davig    Huesmann       wrote       various     checks     from     the    trust
    account    and   electronically         transferred         various      sums    from      the
    trust   account     to   the    firm's      business      account.           Many     of   the
    electronic transfers from the trust account were not recorded in
    the transaction register or in any client ledgers.                            On multiple
    dates there was less money in the trust account for the R.T.
    estate than should have been there.
    ¶8      On February 6, 2014, the final check relating to the
    R.T. estate was presented for payment, leading to a $13,726.97
    overdraft on the trust account.              The bank honored that check.
    ¶9      On February 7, 2014, Attorney Davig Huesmann deposited
    a $14,000 bank check from a credit union into the trust account.
    3
    No.     2016AP1603-D
    The    memo    line          on    the   check          read    "RE:       Christopher       Perner."
    Christopher Perner is Attorney Davig Huesmann's current husband.
    ¶10     On February 13, 2014, another trust account check was
    presented for payment and resulted in an overdraft in the trust
    account in the amount of $26.97.                            That check was also honored by
    the    bank.            On    February         18,       2014,     Attorney       Davig      Huesmann
    electronically transferred $100 from the business account to the
    trust account to cover that overdraft.
    ¶11     On March 11, 2014, Attorney Davig Huesmann deposited
    another $14,000 into the trust account.                                    The source of that
    money was a cashier's check and the remitter was Attorney Davig
    Huesmann's mother.
    ¶12     The       OLR's       investigative               review     of    Attorney       Davig
    Huesmann's trust account records revealed that the transaction
    register, which was broken down month-by-month, was inadequate.
    The register did not include the balance in the account after
    each    transaction,              nor    did       it    contain       a   beginning      or   ending
    balance       for       any       month.     The        register       additionally       failed    to
    identify the source of each deposit, and occasionally it did not
    indicate the client for whom the funds were being disbursed.
    Attorney Davig Huesmann failed to record over $19,000 in nine
    electronic         transfers         from      the       trust     account       to    the   business
    account in the trust account transaction register.                                       Several of
    the    dates       in    Attorney            Davig       Huesmann's        client      ledgers   were
    incomplete;          she          failed      to        maintain       monthly        reconciliation
    reports       as    required            by   supreme           court   rules;     she    frequently
    deposited multiple deposit items at one time but the deposit
    4
    No.    2016AP1603-D
    slips did not identify the amount or client matter associated
    with each deposit item; and the memo lines of most of the checks
    she disbursed from the trust account did not identify the client
    matter or the purpose for the disbursement.
    ¶13     On    February       25,    2014,       the    OLR     sent      Attorney     Davig
    Huesmann a letter informing her of the investigation into the
    overdrafts in her trust account and requiring her to provide a
    written response.            In February of 2015, the OLR filed a notice
    of    motion    and      motion     requesting         an     order      to     show   cause   why
    Attorney Davig Huesmann's license should not be suspended for
    her    willful       failure      to     cooperate       in    the       OLR's    investigation
    concerning her conduct.                   After this court issued an order to
    show cause, Attorney Davig Huesmann provided information which
    the    OLR     deemed       sufficient        to        allow       it     to     continue     its
    investigation, and the order to show cause was dismissed at the
    OLR's request.
    ¶14     In January of 2016, the OLR filed a second motion
    requesting          an    order     to     show       cause    due       to     Attorney     Davig
    Huesmann's continued willful failure to cooperate in the OLR's
    investigation.            This court issued a second order to show cause.
    Attorney Davig Huesmann provided the OLR with some additional
    information, and the OLR subsequently withdrew its second motion
    to suspend her license.
    ¶15     The       parties'        stipulation         set     forth       the    following
    counts of misconduct, which were alleged in the OLR's complaint:
    5
    No.   2016AP1603-D
    Count 1:    By converting $13,732.43 belonging to the
    R.T. estate to her own purposes, Attorney Davig
    Huesmann violated SCR 20:8.4(c).2
    Count 2:    By failing to hold in trust $13,732.43
    relating to the R.T. estate, Attorney Davig Huesmann
    violated current SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).3
    Count 3:   By failing to hold $14,677.27 in trust for
    those   eight   additional  clients,   Attorney Davig
    Huesmann violated current SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).
    Count 4:   By depositing $28,000 in personal funds to
    her trust account:    $14,000 on February 7, 2014 and
    $14,000 on March 11, 2014 in order to conceal her
    conversions and failures to hold client funds in
    trust, Attorney Davig Huesmann violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
    Count 5:  By depositing $28,000 in personal funds to
    her trust account:  $14,000 on February 7, 2014 and
    2
    SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct
    for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
    deceit or misrepresentation."
    3
    Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to
    Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule."       See
    S. Ct. Order 14-07, 
    2016 WI 21
     (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July
    1, 2016). Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior
    to July 1, 2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to
    the supreme court rules will be to those in effect prior to
    July 1, 2016.
    Current SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides:
    A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the
    lawyer's own property, that property of clients and
    3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in
    connection with a representation.        All funds of
    clients and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm
    in connection with a representation shall be deposited
    in one or more identifiable trust accounts.
    6
    No.    2016AP1603-D
    $14,000 on March 11, 2014, Attorney             Davig   Huesmann
    violated former SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).4
    Count 6: By failing to maintain trust account records
    that complied with the requirements of SCR 20:1.15,
    including the transaction register, client ledgers,
    deposit slips, checks, and monthly reconciliations,
    Attorney     Davig     Huesmann     violated   former
    5
    SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)a., b., d., e.1, and g.
    4
    Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) provided: "No funds belonging to
    the lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient to
    pay monthly account service charges may be deposited or retained
    in a trust account."
    5
    Former SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)a., b., d., e.1, and g. provided:
    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:
    a. The transaction register shall contain a
    chronological record of all account transactions, and
    shall include all of the following:
    1. the date, source, and amount of all deposits;
    2. the date, check or transaction number, payee
    and amount of all disbursements, whether by check,
    wire transfer, or other means;
    3. the date and amount of every other deposit or
    deduction of whatever nature;
    4. the identity of the client for whom funds were
    deposited or disbursed; and
    5. the      balance   in       the   account   after    each
    transaction.
    b. A subsidiary ledger shall be maintained for
    each client or 3rd party for whom the lawyer receives
    (continued)
    7
    No.    2016AP1603-D
    trust funds that are deposited in an IOLTA account or
    any other pooled trust account.     The lawyer shall
    record each receipt and disbursement of a client's or
    3rd party's funds and the balance following each
    transaction.   A lawyer shall not disburse funds from
    an IOLTA account or any pooled trust account that
    would create a negative balance with respect to any
    individual client or matter.
    d. Deposit slips shall identify the name of the
    lawyer or law firm, and the name of the account. The
    deposit slip shall identify the amount of each deposit
    item, the client or matter associated with each
    deposit item, and the date of the deposit. The lawyer
    shall maintain a copy or duplicate of each deposit
    slip. All deposits shall be made intact. No cash, or
    other form of disbursement, shall be deducted from a
    deposit. Deposits of wired funds shall be documented
    in the account's monthly statement.
    e.1.     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.
    g.    For each trust account, the lawyer shall
    prepare and retain a printed reconciliation report on
    a regular and periodic basis not less frequently than
    every 30 days. Each reconciliation report shall show
    all of the following balances and verify that they are
    identical:
    1. the balance that appears in the transaction
    register as of the reporting date;
    2. the total of all subsidiary ledger balances
    for IOLTA accounts and other pooled trust accounts,
    determined by listing and totaling the balances in the
    individual client ledgers and the ledger for account
    fees and charges, as of the reporting date; and
    (continued)
    8
    No.   2016AP1603-D
    Count 7: By making electronic (Internet) deposits to
    and disbursements from her trust account from at least
    January 2, 2013 through February 6, 2014, Attorney
    Davig Huesmann violated former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c.6
    Count 8:   By failing to respond to multiple letters
    from   the  OLR  and   by  providing   incomplete  and
    contradictory responses, necessitating the filing of
    two motions for orders to show cause why her license
    should not be suspended for willfully failing to
    cooperate with the OLR's investigation, Attorney Davig
    Huesmann violated SCR 22.03(2)7 and SCR 22.03(6),8
    3. the adjusted balance, determined by adding
    outstanding deposits and other credits to the balance
    in the financial institution's monthly statement and
    subtracting outstanding checks and other deductions
    from the balance in the monthly statement.
    6
    Former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c. provided: "A lawyer shall not
    make deposits to or disbursements from a trust account by way of
    an Internet transaction."
    7
    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
    questions,   furnish   documents,   and   present   any
    information deemed relevant to the investigation.
    8
    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."
    9
    No.     2016AP1603-D
    which are enforced under the                 Rules       of    Professional
    Conduct via SCR 20:8.4(h).9
    ¶16      The     parties    stated    that        the    stipulation          may    be
    admitted into evidence without any supporting testimony.                                 The
    parties    further     stated    that    the    referee       may    file     a    report
    reciting     or      incorporating       the     factual          portions        of     the
    stipulation as the referee's findings of fact and the referee
    may recite or incorporate the stated counts of misconduct as the
    referee's conclusions of law.             The parties stated there was no
    stipulation as to what specific discipline the referee should
    recommend.
    ¶17      Following the filing of the stipulation, the parties
    submitted briefs regarding the appropriate discipline to impose
    for Attorney Davig Huesmann's misconduct.                     The referee issued
    his report on January 12, 2018.                Although the OLR had sought a
    one-year suspension of Attorney Davig Huesmann's Wisconsin law
    license, the referee concluded that a public reprimand was an
    appropriate sanction.
    ¶18      The referee identified a number of aggravating factors
    present in this matter: there were multiple offenses; Attorney
    Davig     Huesmann    initially    failed       to     comply       with     the       OLR's
    investigation;        Attorney     Davig        Huesmann           had     substantial
    experience    in     the   practice      of    law;    and    client       funds        were
    9
    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(2), SCR 22.03(6),
    or SCR 22.04(1)."
    10
    No.    2016AP1603-D
    involved.         The     referee       also    identified          multiple      mitigating
    factors:      an absence of a prior disciplinary record; an absence
    of a dishonest or selfish motive; personal problems; a timely
    rectification of the consequences of the misconduct; a full and
    free    disclosure          and     ultimate          cooperation          with    the      OLR
    proceeding; Attorney Davig Huesmann's character and reputation;
    and her chemical dependency.                    The referee said he primarily
    focused      on     three       mitigating     factors:            (1)     Attorney       Davig
    Huesmann had no prior disciplinary history; (2) her personal
    problems      and     chemical       dependency,        which       the     referee       found
    contributed         to     her     misconduct,         have        been    addressed        and
    rectified; and (3) her personal problems led to her professional
    problems, particularly concerning her law practice's financial
    circumstances.
    ¶19    The     referee       praised         Attorney       Davig     Huesmann       for
    addressing substance abuse and mental health issues and noted
    that    she       submitted        an    affidavit        showing          that    she     had
    successfully completed a two-year contract with the Wisconsin
    Lawyer Assistance Program (WisLAP).                      The referee said Attorney
    Davig Huesmann also productively addressed other mental health
    issues with personal counseling, as evidenced by an affidavit
    she presented from a counseling service.
    ¶20    The    referee       found       that    Attorney          Davig    Huesmann's
    professional         problems       arose      after     the       dissolution       of    her
    marriage      and        then     the    dissolution          of     her    law     practice
    partnership with her former husband.                      The referee said it was
    not surprising that cash flow problems developed as Attorney
    11
    No.     2016AP1603-D
    Davig Huesmann was left alone to keep her law practice afloat.
    The    referee    commended    Attorney        Davig    Huesmann       for    finding
    employment in a well-established and professionally managed law
    firm that has the procedures and personnel in place to deal with
    trust account and other financial issues.
    ¶21    The referee said there is no question that Attorney
    Davig Huesmann's violations are serious given that the trust of
    clients was violated and large amounts of money were involved.
    In    addition,   the    referee     noted   that     Attorney    Davig      Huesmann
    failed to respond in a timely manner to the OLR's inquiries,
    necessitating the issuance of two orders to show cause.                            The
    referee also pointed out that some of the misconduct alleged in
    the OLR's complaint occurred after Attorney Davig Huesmann had
    found a safer port with her new law firm.                      In addition, the
    referee rejected Attorney Davig Huesmann's claim that her trust
    account problems were due to poor record-keeping.                      The referee
    said    the   multiple    transfers     from    the    trust     account      to   the
    business account that occurred in 2013 and 2014 were not simply
    mistakes but were intentionally done either by Attorney Davig
    Huesmann or by someone else under her supervision.
    ¶22    While the referee said that the OLR made reasonable
    arguments why a suspension of Attorney Davig Huesmann's license
    would be appropriate, the referee ultimately concluded that a
    suspension     "would    be   more    punitive      than   productive."            The
    referee opined that Attorney Davig Huesmann has already taken
    the steps necessary to protect current and future clients from a
    repetition of her mistakes and has already absorbed the lesson
    12
    No.     2016AP1603-D
    of the seriousness of her misconduct.                      The referee noted that
    there have been many instances in which this court has imposed
    public reprimands for trust account related misconduct, and he
    ultimately concluded that a public reprimand was an appropriate
    sanction for Attorney Davig Huesmann's misconduct.
    ¶23     In its appeal, the OLR argues that a public reprimand
    is not a sufficient level of discipline.                         The OLR notes that
    Attorney Davig Huesmann, by virtue of the stipulation, admitted
    to    five    trust   account       violations,      two       misconduct       counts   of
    dishonesty, and one count of willfully failing to cooperate with
    the OLR's investigation into her conduct.                        The OLR points out
    that    one    of   the    SCR     20:8.4(c)     counts,       which    Attorney     Davig
    Huesmann      admitted,      was    converting      for    her    own    purposes       over
    $13,000 belonging to an estate, and the other SCR 20:8.4(c)
    count, which she admitted, was depositing $28,000 in personal
    funds to her trust account in order to conceal her conversions
    and her failures to hold client funds in trust.
    ¶24     The OLR argues that some of the alleged mitigating
    factors       identified     by     the   referee    to     justify       the     sanction
    recommendation        were    either      erroneous       or     unsupported       in    the
    record or by case law.               For example, the OLR asserts that the
    referee's identification of "absence of a dishonest or selfish
    motive" as a mitigating factor is clearly erroneous given the
    fact that Attorney Davig Huesmann stipulated that by converting
    over $13,000 belonging to the R.T. estate to her own purposes
    she    violated     SCR    20:8.4(c).       In    addition,       the    OLR     says    the
    referee's conclusion that there was an absence of a dishonest or
    13
    No.     2016AP1603-D
    selfish     motive     is     inconsistent          with     the     referee's     other
    statements that Attorney Davig Huesmann's conduct violated the
    trust of her clients and that the multiple transfers from the
    trust account to the business account were not simply mistakes
    but were intentional.           The OLR argues that to the extent the
    referee recommended a public reprimand based on an absence of
    dishonesty,     that     premise       is        erroneous     and     the     referee's
    resulting recommendation is overly lenient.
    ¶25   The OLR goes on to argue that there is insufficient
    credible evidence in the record for the referee to have made a
    finding     regarding       Attorney      Davig      Huesmann's        character       and
    reputation.     The OLR notes the referee fails to state what he
    believes Attorney Davig Huesmann's character or reputation are,
    or what basis exists for his conclusion.                   The OLR says since any
    mention of character and reputation evidence is entirely absent
    in the stipulation, the referee's finding must have been gleaned
    from the affidavits that Attorney Davig Huesmann filed after the
    OLR   had    already        filed   its      reply     brief       with      respect   to
    sanctions.10
    10
    The OLR notes that the referee's scheduling order
    required Attorney Davig Huesmann to submit to the OLR's counsel
    the affidavits she proposed to file with the referee by October
    27, 2017. The OLR was then to have seven days to make a request
    to the referee that it be allowed to conduct discovery, an
    investigation, or make its own submissions in response to the
    affidavits. The OLR points out that Attorney Davig Huesmann did
    not submit her affidavits until after the OLR had already filed
    its sanctions brief, depriving the OLR of the opportunity to
    conduct discovery, investigate, or make its own submissions.
    14
    No.     2016AP1603-D
    ¶26    The OLR notes that Attorney Davig Huesmann submitted
    an    affidavit     dated    December          1,     2017,      attaching         a    copy     of    a
    medical       record     from       a     counseling             service          in     which        an
    unidentified        writer        states,           referring          to     Attorney         Davig
    Huesmann, "she is very well liked in her work and has a good
    reputation."           The    OLR        says        there       is    no        indication         the
    unidentified        writer    had       any    information            about       Attorney     Davig
    Huesmann's      reputation          beyond          what     Attorney            Davig     Huesmann
    herself reported.           The OLR says the comments in the exhibit are
    hearsay from an unknown person who has an unknown source and are
    thus not reliable or admissible evidence.
    ¶27    The OLR also points out that Attorney Davig Huesmann's
    sanctions brief to the referee stated, "Sonja's practice largely
    consists of strongly advocating for her family law clients.                                         She
    has a reputation of being a very dependable attorney for her
    clients."      In addition, the OLR notes the sanctions brief says
    that Attorney Davig Huesmann has "an exemplary reputation."                                         The
    OLR    says    this    is    argument,          not    evidence,            and    there       is     no
    testimony      or   other     evidence         in     the       record      to    support      those
    assertions.         Accordingly, the OLR argues there is insufficient
    credible      evidence       in    the        record       to     support         the     referee's
    reliance on Attorney Davig Huesmann's character and reputation
    as mitigating factors.
    ¶28    Next, the OLR argues that Attorney Davig Huesmann's
    claimed personal problems, including chemical dependency, should
    not    have    been    considered         as    mitigating            factors          because      the
    record does not show those issues caused her misconduct.                                            The
    15
    No.     2016AP1603-D
    OLR   notes       that    Attorney      Davig           Huesmann's      November        17,    2017,
    affidavit stated that in 2010 she had first been prescribed an
    anti-anxiety medication; that she suffered from a situational
    substance         abuse       problem     for           which     she       eventually         sought
    treatment         in     2015    through           individual           counseling        and        by
    participation in WisLAP; and that her anxiety and depression
    affected her ability to conquer all facets of everyday affairs
    while managing a law practice.                      The OLR says that Attorney Davig
    Huesmann's affidavit, besides being vague as to the pertinent
    dates, never claims that her condition caused her professional
    misconduct, nor did her sanctions brief make that claim.
    ¶29     The       OLR   also     says     that       the    paper       identified        as    a
    medical record from a counseling service attached to Attorney
    Davig    Huesmann's           December     1,       2017        affidavit,       does     not     say
    whether she had a chemical dependency or mental disability that
    caused      her        misconduct.            In        addition,       the     OLR     says     the
    December 1, 2017 affidavit attached a letter from WisLAP which
    also did not indicate whether Attorney Davig Huesmann had a
    chemical      dependency         or     mental           disability         that      caused     her
    misconduct.
    ¶30     The       OLR    says     this       court        has   clearly         stated    that
    causation must be found in order for a medical condition to
    mitigate the sanction in a disciplinary proceeding.                                    See, e.g.,
    In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan, 
    2006 WI 38
    , ¶62,
    
    290 Wis. 2d 30
    , 
    712 N.W.2d 877
    ; In re Disciplinary Proceedings
    Against     Mandelman,          
    2014 WI 100
    ,       ¶54,       
    358 Wis. 2d 179
    ,        
    851 N.W.2d 401
    .
    16
    No.        2016AP1603-D
    ¶31   The OLR argues that the statements in Attorney Davig
    Huesmann's    affidavit       and     her    sanctions       brief    regarding           her
    personal problems are so vague with respect to dates that it is
    impossible to tell what problems, if any, coincided time-wise
    with   her   misconduct,           much   less   whether      her    misconduct           was
    causally related to her personal problems.                   The OLR asserts that
    since there was not sufficient credible evidence in the record
    to establish that one or more of the eight counts of misconduct
    were caused by Attorney Davig Huesmann's chemical dependency,
    anxiety, or depression, those claimed medical issues should not
    have been considered mitigating factors by the referee.
    ¶32   The    OLR      further       argues     that    when        the        referee
    determined    the    appropriate          sanction    he   failed    to     distinguish
    conversion of client trust fund cases from other less egregious
    trust account violations and apparently considered trust account
    related misconduct cases as a group.                  The OLR says that Attorney
    Davig Huesmann's serious failings with respect to holding client
    funds in trust and her dishonest professional misconduct demand
    a sanction greater than just a public reprimand.
    ¶33   The OLR notes that this court has imposed suspensions
    for misconduct far less serious than at issue here.                         See, e.g.,
    In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bartz, 
    2015 WI 61
    , 
    362 Wis. 2d 752
    ,       
    864 N.W.2d 881
           (parties    stipulated      to        a    60-day
    suspension imposed for five counts of misconduct, including one
    SCR 20:8.4(c) violation.              The attorney had a previous private
    reprimand     and        several     administrative        suspensions);             In    re
    Disciplinary       Proceedings       Against     Schuster,      
    2006 WI 21
    ,     289
    17
    No.      2016AP1603-D
    Wis. 2d 23, 
    710 N.W.2d 458
     (parties stipulated to a nine-month
    suspension       for       six      counts       of       misconduct,         including          one
    SCR 20:8.4(c)         violation.          The    attorney        had       one    prior       90-day
    suspension and one prior consensual private reprimand).
    ¶34   The OLR says while Attorney Davig Huesmann's purported
    addressing of some of her personal issues may lend sympathy to
    imposing     a    suspension            less    than       the       one     year      originally
    recommended by the OLR, it strenuously argues that imposing only
    a public reprimand would unduly depreciate the seriousness of
    the   misconduct           at    issue,    would          be   inconsistent            with     past
    precedent, and would fly in the face of this court's need for
    discipline       to    deter      other    attorneys           from    committing          similar
    misconduct.
    ¶35   Attorney            Davig     Huesmann         argues      that         the    referee
    correctly determined that a public reprimand is an appropriate
    sanction for her misconduct given the circumstances surrounding
    her actions.          Attorney Davig Huesmann argues she suffered from a
    situational substance problem for which she eventually sought
    treatment    in       2015.       She     says       in    looking         back   at      her   past
    conduct,    "it       is    clear       that    the       anxiety     and     depression         had
    affected    Sonja's         ability       to    conquer        all    facets        of    everyday
    affairs while managing a law practice, working to the best of
    her ability for her clients as well as adapting to raising two
    young children as a single parent."                        She argues she continues to
    excel in her substance abuse recovery and says she has made
    tremendous strides with her anxiety and depression issues.
    18
    No.    2016AP1603-D
    ¶36     Attorney       Davig       Huesmann         says    she    has        a    history       of
    being active in her community.                    She says the last several years
    have    been       very    difficult       for    her       and    that        she       has       extreme
    remorse      for     violating        supreme         court       rules.            She    says        the
    misconduct at issue here is not who she is, and she argues her
    mistakes should not define her but rather should refine her and
    make her a better attorney and better person in the future.                                           She
    says    given       the    totality       of    the    circumstances,               the    referee's
    recommendation of a public reprimand is an appropriate sanction.
    ¶37     A    referee's        findings         of    fact        are    affirmed             unless
    clearly erroneous.              Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
    See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 
    2004 WI 14
    , ¶5, 
    269 Wis. 2d 43
    , 
    675 N.W.2d 747
    .                                 The court may impose
    whatever       sanction       it    sees       fit,    regardless             of    the    referee's
    recommendation.              See    In    re     Disciplinary            Proceedings               Against
    Widule, 
    2003 WI 34
    , ¶44, 
    261 Wis. 2d 45
    , 
    660 N.W.2d 686
    .
    ¶38     We    adopt     the       referee's         findings       of       fact,       as     they
    appear    in       the     stipulation,         and    we     further          agree       with        the
    referee's conclusions of law, also set forth in the stipulation,
    that Attorney Davig Huesmann violated the supreme court rules
    set forth above.
    ¶39     With respect to the appropriate level of discipline,
    after    careful          review,    we    agree      with        the    OLR       that        a    public
    reprimand is not an adequate sanction for the misconduct at
    issue here.         Attorney Davig Huesmann admitted to eight counts of
    misconduct,         including       two    counts      of     violating            SCR    20:8.4(c),
    which states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to
    19
    No.     2016AP1603-D
    engage       in     conduct      involving        "dishonesty,        fraud,      deceit    or
    misrepresentation."               We agree with the OLR that the referee's
    conclusion that there was an absence of a dishonest or selfish
    motive       is    at     odds    with    his     statement       that     Attorney      Davig
    Huesmann violated SCR 20:8.4(c) and is also inconsistent with
    his statement that "the trust of clients was violated.                                   Large
    amounts of money were involved."
    ¶40        As the OLR noted, this court has clearly stated that a
    medical or psychological condition will not be considered in
    mitigation         of    discipline       unless       the    condition     is     explicitly
    found to have caused the misconduct.                            See Mandelman, 
    2014 WI 100
    ,    ¶54;       Scanlan       
    2006 WI 38
    ,      ¶62.      While     Attorney      Davig
    Huesmann is to be commended for addressing her personal and
    substance abuse problems, there is no showing in this record
    that     those       problems       were      the      cause     of   her        professional
    misconduct,         and    they    should       not    be     considered    as     mitigating
    factors.          Similarly, there is no showing in this record, beyond
    Attorney Davig Huesmann's own self-serving statements, that her
    character and reputation should be viewed as mitigating factors.
    In    addition,         although    Attorney          Davig    Huesmann    did     ultimately
    cooperate with the OLR's investigation, she did not do so until
    she    had    been      served     with    two    separate       orders    to     show   cause
    threatening a license suspension if she did not fully respond to
    the OLR's inquiries.
    ¶41        To be sure, there are some mitigating factors present
    in this case.           Attorney Davig Huesmann has no prior disciplinary
    history.          It appears that she has taken up practice in a law
    20
    No.     2016AP1603-D
    firm    where       she       is    not      responsible          for    managing       the    trust
    account.       As we have noted, she is also to be commended for
    taking       steps    to       address         her        personal      and     substance      abuse
    problems and it appears that she is genuinely remorseful for her
    misconduct and is determined not to repeat it.
    ¶42    The OLR had sought a one-year suspension of Attorney
    Davig    Huesmann's           license         to    practice       law    in     Wisconsin.       We
    conclude       that       a        one-year        suspension           would     be    excessive.
    However, we agree with the OLR that something more than a public
    reprimand is warranted in view of the serious misconduct at
    issue here.          On balance, we conclude that a 60-day suspension of
    Attorney Davig Huesmann's license is an appropriate sanction.
    We   find     the     case         of   In    re    Disciplinary          Proceedings         Against
    Bartz, 
    2015 WI 61
    , which was cited by the OLR, to be somewhat
    instructive.
    ¶43    In Bartz, the attorney stipulated to five counts of
    misconduct,         including           one    count        of    violating          SCR 20:8.4(c).
    Attorney      Bartz       had       previously        been       privately       reprimanded     and
    also    had    been       administratively                suspended      on     three    occasions,
    once for nonpayment of state bar dues and failure to file a
    trust       account        certificate,              once        for      noncompliance         with
    continuing          legal          education          requirements,             and     once     for
    noncooperation with an OLR investigation.
    ¶44    The      amount           of    the     trust       account        conversions      in
    Attorney Davig Huesmann's case were much more significant than
    in the Bartz case.                      However, Attorney Davig Huesmann has no
    prior    disciplinary               history.              Although      no     two     disciplinary
    21
    No.     2016AP1603-D
    matters are ever identical, we conclude that, as in Bartz, a 60-
    day suspension is an appropriate sanction for Attorney Davig
    Huesmann's misconduct.           In addition, we deem it appropriate, as
    is   our    normal     custom,      to    impose       the        full    costs     of    this
    proceeding on Attorney Davig Huesmann.
    ¶45    IT    IS     ORDERED      that      the     license          of     Sonja    Davig
    Huesmann,    also      known   as    Sonja    C.      Davig,       to    practice       law    in
    Wisconsin    is     suspended       for   a   period         of    60    days,     effective
    February 8, 2019.
    ¶46    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
    of this order, Sonja Davig Huesmann, also known as Sonja C.
    Davig, shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of
    this proceeding, which are $10,360.04 as of May 21, 2018.
    ¶47    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sonja Davig Huesmann, also
    known as Sonja C. Davig, 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.
    ¶48    IT    IS     FURTHER      ORDERED         that        compliance      with        all
    conditions with this order is required for reinstatement.                                     See
    SCR 22.28(2).
    ¶49    PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, C.J., did not participate.
    22
    No.   2016AP1603-D
    1
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2016AP001603-D

Citation Numbers: 922 N.W.2d 498, 385 Wis. 2d 49, 2018 WI 114

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/28/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024