Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James C. Ritland ( 2024 )

2024 WI 38NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2018AP1832-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against James C. Ritland, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant-Respondent,
OCT 10, 2024
v.
Samuel A. Christensen
Clerk of Supreme Court
James C. Ritland,
Respondent-Appellant.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Reinstatement denied.
¶1 PER CURIAM. James C. Ritland has appealed Referee L.
Michael Tobin's report recommending that we deny Attorney
Ritland's petition for the reinstatement of his license to practice
law in Wisconsin. We agree with the referee that Attorney
Ritland's license to practice law should not be reinstated at this
time. In addition, we direct Attorney Ritland to pay the costs of
the reinstatement proceeding, which totaled $13,528.91 as of
September 30, 2024.
No. 2018AP1832-D
¶2 Attorney Ritland was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1978. In 2021, his license to practice law was
suspended for two years for paying money to two women to perform
sex acts and being convicted of attempted adultery and disorderly
conduct. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ritland, 2021 WI
36, 396 Wis. 2d 509, 957 N.W.2d 540.
¶3 Attorney Ritland filed a petition for the reinstatement
of his law license in April 2023. The Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR) filed a response opposing the petition. A hearing was held
before the referee on September 21, 2023. Attorney Ritland
presented testimony of four witnesses and also testified on his
own behalf. The OLR presented testimony of two witnesses and also
called Attorney Ritland for questioning as an adverse witness.
¶4 The referee issued his report and recommendation on
November 14, 2023. The referee found that Attorney Ritland had
met some of the reinstatement criteria, including demonstrating
that he desires to have his license reinstated; complying with
Wisconsin continuing legal education requirements; showing his
proposed use of his license if reinstated; making timely
arrangements to close his law practice; and demonstrating that he
has not practiced law during his period of suspension.1
1 On July 29, 2024, the Office of Lawyer Regulation filed a
Notice of Motion and Motion to Enforce Disciplinary Order and a
Memorandum in support of the Motion alleging that it recently
learned that Attorney Ritland has engaged in activities while his
license was suspended that would constitute the practice of law,
contrary to SCR 22.26(2) and this court's order suspending Attorney
Ritland's Wisconsin law license. The court will resolve OLR's
motion in a separate, contemporaneously issued order.
2
No. 2018AP1832-D
¶5 The referee found that Attorney Ritland did not meet
other aspects of the reinstatement criteria. The referee found
that Attorney Ritland failed to demonstrate that he has the
necessary moral character to practice law in Wisconsin. The
referee noted that the sexual misconduct which resulted in Attorney
Ritland's suspension involved the misuse of his status as an
attorney in that the sexual encounters occurred at Attorney
Ritland's law office, and he used his attorney status through his
representation of one victim and his access to visit the other
victim while she was in jail. The referee said that at the
reinstatement hearing, Attorney Ritland continued to minimize the
connection between his status as an attorney and the sexual
misconduct that resulted in his suspension, choosing to portray
the misconduct as primarily a failure in his personal life.
¶6 This court's order imposing the two-year suspension of
Attorney Ritland's law license was issued on April 22, 2021, and
took effect on June 3, 2021. The referee noted that on May 6,
2021, Attorney Ritland entered a notice of retainer as attorney
for A.P. in a criminal case in Clark County. The referee found
that on May 11, 2021, at A.P.'s initial appearance involving
several traffic forfeitures and a felony charge, Attorney Ritland
twice misrepresented the reason for his need to withdraw from the
case, referring to June 3, 2021, as the date of his retirement.
At the reinstatement hearing, Attorney Ritland equated his
references to retirement as notice of his suspension, claiming, "I
said the same thing in different words." The referee said:
3
No. 2018AP1832-D
Because of Ritland's impending suspension, he could not
realistically investigate the charges or engage in
pretrial motion practice, let alone take the cases to
trial. . . .
By referring twice to his retirement (including the
statement that this court was forcing him to
retire), . . . Ritland showed a lack of candor to the
court regarding his status as an attorney and his reason
for requesting a court date before June 3.
¶7 The referee also found that Attorney Ritland's conduct
in a bankruptcy case fell short of demonstrating that he has the
moral character to practice law. The referee noted that in a
meeting of bankruptcy creditors on May 3, 2021, Attorney Ritland
failed to disclose that he was suspended from the practice of law
effective June 3, 2021, and he then falsely represented to OLR on
two occasions that he had notified the bankruptcy court of his
impending suspension.
¶8 In addition, the referee found that on August 3, 2021,
after Attorney Ritland's suspension had taken effect, the attorney
for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Trustee filed a motion to examine
Attorney Ritland's fee in a bankruptcy matter involving his client,
A.S. On August 19, 2021, Attorney Ritland loaned A.S. $578 by
money order and received a written agreement from her to repay the
loan from an expected inheritance. A debtor must disclose any
inheritance right received within six months of filing a bankruptcy
petition. On August 24, 2021, Attorney Ritland filed an Amended
and Restated Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for Debtor.
Prior to that date, Attorney Ritland and his client had signed two
financing agreements with a third-party lender. The Amended and
Restated Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for Debtor
4
No. 2018AP1832-D
identified only A.S. and not the third-party lender as the source
of Attorney Ritland's compensation.
¶9 On August 4, 2021, Attorney Ritland filed a lengthy
response to the Bankruptcy Trustee's motion to examine his fees,
and he asked the bankruptcy court to uphold the validity of the
amended compensation agreement. The bankruptcy court held an
evidentiary hearing regarding Attorney Ritland's fees on December
17, 2021, and found that the Amended and Restated Disclosure of
Compensation of Attorney for Debtor was not accurate and that it
violated both a federal statute and a court rule requiring
disclosure of the sources of attorney compensation and of fee-
sharing arrangements. The bankruptcy court ordered that A.S. was
relieved of any fee obligation. On February 18, 2022, the
bankruptcy court entered an order approving A.S.'s bankruptcy
petition and discharging applicable debts. Attorney Ritland
maintained at the hearing that he had handled A.S.'s case well in
light of her having received debt relief and not having to pay
attorney's fees. Attorney Ritland did acknowledge a "slight
mistake" in his handling of the matter.
¶10 The referee further found that Attorney Ritland failed
to meet his burden of demonstrating that his resumption of the
practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of
justice or subversive of the public interest.
¶11 The referee also found that Attorney Ritland failed to
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26(1)(a) requiring him to
notify his clients by certified mail, on or before the date of his
suspension, of his impending suspension and his resulting
5
No. 2018AP1832-D
inability to provide legal services; he failed to comply with SCR
22.26(1)(b), which required him to advise his clients to seek legal
advice elsewhere; and he failed to comply with SCR 22.26(1)(c),
which required him to promptly provide written notification of his
suspension to applicable courts, administrative agencies, and
opposing counsel. The referee said it was undisputed that Attorney
Ritland sent a certified letter to only one of his ten clients,
and that letter was untimely. The referee said it was unclear
whether, and if so, when, Attorney Ritland advised his clients to
seek legal advice elsewhere. The referee also said Attorney
Ritland provided written notification of his suspension in only
one of ten applicable proceedings. In addition, the referee said
Attorney Ritland failed to comply with SCR 22.26(1)(f), which
required him to maintain records documenting his compliance with
SCR 22.26.
¶12 The referee further found that Attorney Ritland failed
to show that his conduct after his suspension has been exemplary
and above reproach. The referee said of particular concern in
that regard were Attorney Ritland's misrepresentations to the
Clark County circuit court in the A.P. case, his misrepresentations
to OLR, and his failure to comply with the rules of this court
regarding notification to clients and courts of his suspension.
¶13 The referee also found that Attorney Ritland failed to
show that he has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the
standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and that he
will act in conformity with those standards. The referee said,
"Ritland's attitude toward the applicable rules includes his
6
No. 2018AP1832-D
belief that he could ignore the specific notice requirements of
SCR 22.26 and instead use a 'better' method of letting clients and
courts know of his suspension."
¶14 Finally, the referee found that Attorney Ritland failed
to demonstrate that he can be safely recommended to the public and
the legal community as fit to provide representation and to serve
as an officer of the court. In support of this conclusion, the
referee again pointed to Attorney Ritland's misstatements to the
Clark County circuit court, his misstatements to OLR, and his
failure to follow the rules of the bankruptcy court in the A.S.
case. The referee said Attorney Ritland's failure to fully
disclose the terms of his fee agreement with A.S. resulted in a
hearing at which he and his former client had different financial
interests in how the court evaluated the agreement. For all of
these reasons, the referee recommends that this court deny Attorney
Ritland's reinstatement petition. The referee also recommends
that Attorney Ritland be required to pay the full costs of this
reinstatement proceeding.
¶15 Attorney Ritland has appealed the referee's
recommendation. He asserts that, contrary to the referee's
findings, he has met his burden of demonstrating by clear,
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he met all of the
criteria for reinstatement.
¶16 Attorney Ritland takes issue with the referee's findings
of fact regarding the Clark County case in which he represented
A.P. Attorney Ritland makes much of the fact that A.P. did not
7
No. 2018AP1832-D
file a grievance with OLR about Attorney Ritland's handling of the
case.
¶17 Attorney Ritland also disputes the referee's findings of
fact regarding his representation of A.S. in the bankruptcy case.
Again, he views it significant that A.S. did not file a grievance
against him, and he notes that he obtained a bankruptcy discharge
for her.
¶18 Attorney Ritland argues that the referee should not be
allowed to "rely on my criminal behavior from 2013 to 2016," i.e.
the conduct that resulted in his two-year suspension, because
"[t]he focus of this procedure is my conduct after the beginning
of my suspension, which started in 2021."
¶19 Attorney Ritland asks the court to consider the four
character witnesses who testified on his behalf at the evidentiary
hearing and notes that they testified about his service to his
clients and the greater Black River Falls community.
¶20 The OLR argues that the referee correctly concluded that
Attorney Ritland failed to establish that he has the moral
character to practice law in Wisconsin; that his resumption of the
practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of
justice; and that he has fully complied with the terms of this
court's order imposing the two-year suspension.
¶21 The OLR notes that a referee's findings of fact will be
adopted unless they are clearly erroneous. In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Lister, 2010 WI 108, 329 Wis. 2d 289, 787
N.W.2d 820. It also notes that where testimony is conflicting,
the referee is the ultimate arbiter of credibility. In re
8
No. 2018AP1832-D
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Pump, 120 Wis. 2d 422, 426-27,
355 N.W.2d 248 (1984). The OLR says although Attorney Ritland
makes a number of comments about the referee's findings of fact,
he offers little insight as to their significance and fails to
explain whether his comments are based on factual disputes or legal
arguments. The OLR says Attorney Ritland makes no attempt to show
how any of the factual findings he cites to were clearly erroneous
or that any inferences by the referee based on the evidence were
unreasonable.
¶22 The OLR asserts that the referee correctly concluded
that Attorney Ritland failed to prove he has the moral character
to practice law in Wisconsin. While Attorney Ritland argues that
the referee should not be allowed to rely on his criminal behavior
in evaluating whether Attorney Ritland has met the criteria for
reinstatement, OLR says the referee did not rely on the criminal
behavior; he relied on Attorney Ritland's own statements
minimizing that behavior. The OLR says:
Ritland's continued failure to recognize the connection
between his sexual misconduct and his status as an
attorney reflects his general inability to recognize
right from wrong and good from bad as it relates to the
victims of his misconduct. His view that the victims of
his exploitive sexual misconduct were somehow pleasured
by his conduct or enjoyed it signals either distorted
thinking or a general lack of empathy, either of which
would prevent him from appreciating the full degree of
harm he caused by his actions. This shows a stunning
lack of moral character.
¶23 The OLR says the referee's concern about Attorney
Ritland's lack of candor with the Clark County Circuit Court is
well founded. The OLR says the referee appropriately expressed
9
No. 2018AP1832-D
concern about the potential conflict in Attorney Ritland's
interest in getting the case resolved prior to June 3, 2021, when
his license suspension would take effect, and A.P.'s interest in
receiving a just result from the full scope of his lawyer's
representation. The OLR notes that as the factfinder, the referee
was authorized to draw any reasonable inferences from the evidence,
and the referee appropriately inferred that the timing of Attorney
Ritland's appearance created a potential conflict with A.P.'s
interests, which was supported by A.P.'s statement during a hearing
that he wanted a new lawyer.
¶24 The OLR argues that the referee properly determined that
Attorney Ritland's dishonesty to the bankruptcy court in the A.S.
case, as well as his dishonesty to OLR, showed a lack of moral
character. In addition, OLR says Attorney Ritland's multiple false
statements to different tribunals show his propensity toward
untruthfulness when it serves his interests.
¶25 As to the referee's conclusion that Attorney Ritland
failed to comply with the provisions in SCR 22.26 regarding
notification of his suspension, OLR says each of the notification
provisions requires a form of written documentation, and there is
no allowance for verbal notification. The OLR says Attorney
Ritland did not even come close to correctly following the
requirements of SCR 22.26 with respect to notifying clients and
courts of his suspension.
¶26 The OLR urges this court to adopt the referee's findings
of fact and conclusions of law and follow the referee's
10
No. 2018AP1832-D
recommendation to deny Attorney Ritland's petition for
reinstatement of his law license.
¶27 Attorney Ritland's reply brief reiterates that he
believes he has met his burden of demonstrating that he has met
all of the criteria for the reinstatement of his law license. He
says he practiced law for more than 42 years and during that time
he handled thousands of cases. He says not one client ever filed
a grievance with the OLR. He complains that the referee did not
refer to those thousands of satisfied clients; he only referred to
two cases where Attorney Ritland made mistakes. Attorney Ritland
says he enjoys helping people, and as a small town lawyer, he is
qualified to provide high quality legal services at a reasonable
price.
¶28 As the OLR notes, this court will affirm a referee's
findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.
Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Davison, 2010 WI 1, ¶19, 322 Wis. 2d 67, 777
N.W.2d 82.
¶29 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) provides that an attorney
seeking reinstatement of his or her license has the burden of
demonstrating all of the requirements set forth in SCR 22.29(4) by
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence. Upon careful review
of this matter, we adopt the referee's findings of fact and
conclusions of law and agree that Attorney Ritland has failed to
meet his burden of demonstrating that he fully complied with all
of the terms of the order of suspension. We also agree with the
referee that, at the present time, Attorney Ritland cannot safely
11
No. 2018AP1832-D
be recommended to the legal profession, the courts, and the public
as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them
and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence and in general
to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and
as an officer of the court.
¶30 As the referee noted, SCR 22.26(1)(a) plainly provides
the means by which an attorney whose license is suspended shall
notify all clients being represented in pending matters and of the
attorney's consequent inability to act as an attorney following
the effective date of the suspension. In addition, SCR 22.26(1)(b)
requires an attorney to advise his or her clients to seek legal
advice elsewhere, and 22.26(1)(c) requires an attorney to promptly
provide written notification of his or her suspension to applicable
courts, administrative agencies, and opposing counsel. By his own
admission, Attorney Ritland failed to comply with these rules.
¶31 We also share the referee's concern that Attorney
Ritland has failed to demonstrate that he possesses the moral
character to practice law. His false representations to various
tribunals and OLR amply support this conclusion, as does his
continued minimization of the misconduct that led to his
suspension.
¶32 As is our general practice, we find it appropriate to
impose the full costs of this proceeding, $13,528.91, on Attorney
Ritland.
¶33 IT IS ORDERED that James C. Ritland's petition for
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin is
denied.
12
No. 2018AP1832-D
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of
this order, James C. Ritland shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this reinstatement proceeding.
13
No. 2018AP1832-D
1