Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Paul G. Belke

2015 WI 41
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2014AP41-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Paul G. Belke, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Paul G. Belke,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BELKE
OPINION FILED: April 24, 2015
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2015 WI 41
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2014AP41-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Paul G. Belke, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
APR 24, 2015
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Paul G. Belke,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review, pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule (SCR) 22.17(2), the report of the referee, James C. Boll,
recommending that the court suspend Attorney Paul G. Belke's
license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 90 days for
13 counts of misconduct, and also recommending that Attorney
Belke be required to continue to participate in a monitoring
contract with the Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program (WisLAP)
No. 2014AP41-D
and comply with the contract conditions relating to assessment
and treatment.
¶2 Upon careful review of the matter, we adopt the
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law. We conclude,
however, that a four-month suspension of Attorney Belke's
license is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct. We agree
that Attorney Belke should be required to continue to
participate in a WisLAP monitoring contract. We also agree with
the referee that the full costs of the proceeding, which are
$3,316.55 as of February 10, 2015, should be assessed against
Attorney Belke.
¶3 Attorney Belke was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1996. His address on file with the State Bar of
Wisconsin is Princeton, Wisconsin. He has no prior disciplinary
history.
¶4 On January 7, 2014, the Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR) filed a complaint alleging that Attorney Belke committed
13 counts of misconduct. Attorney Belke filed an answer on
February 26, 2014. Referee Boll was appointed on June 3, 2014.
¶5 On September 8, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation
whereby Attorney Belke withdrew his answer to the complaint and
pled no contest to each of the misconduct allegations contained
in the OLR's complaint.1 The parties agreed to oral argument
before the referee only as to the appropriate sanction. The
1
An amended stipulation was filed on January 26, 2015.
2
No. 2014AP41-D
oral argument before the referee took place on December 15,
2014. The referee issued his final decision on January 22,
2015.
¶6 The referee noted that the allegations in the OLR's
complaint involved Attorney Belke's conviction for seven
misdemeanor counts. According to the OLR's complaint, on
August 10, 2010, a deputy sheriff responded to a call of an
intoxicated person, later identified as Attorney Belke, in the
General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee. As a
result of his conduct, Attorney Belke was arrested and charged
with misdemeanor disorderly conduct. He entered a guilty plea
and was convicted of misdemeanor disorderly conduct. His
sentence included one day in jail and a $500 fine. Attorney
Belke failed to notify the OLR of his misdemeanor disorderly
conduct conviction.
¶7 On September 13, 2010, law enforcement responded to a
domestic disturbance between Attorney Belke and his mother in
Princeton, where both apparently lived. As a result of his
conduct, Attorney Belke was arrested and charged with
misdemeanor counts of criminal damage to property (domestic
abuse) and disorderly conduct (domestic abuse). At his initial
appearance, Attorney Belke signed a $1,000 signature bond with
conditions that he maintain absolute sobriety and not be on any
premises licensed to sell alcohol by the drink.
¶8 On the same day that Attorney Belke was released from
the Green Lake County jail and had made an initial appearance in
the case, law enforcement responded to another domestic
3
No. 2014AP41-D
disturbance between Attorney Belke and his mother at their home.
Breath alcohol tests performed on Attorney Belke showed that he
had consumed alcohol in violation of the terms of his bond
agreement. As a result, he was arrested and charged with
misdemeanor counts of bail jumping and disorderly conduct
(domestic abuse). At his initial appearance, he signed a $2,500
signature bond agreement with conditions that he maintain
absolute sobriety, not be on any premises licensed to sell
alcohol by the drink, and move out of his mother's residence
within 14 days.
¶9 On September 25, 2010, City of Madison police stopped
Attorney Belke in Madison, and he was charged with misdemeanor
charges of operating while intoxicated and operating with a
prohibited alcohol content (both second offenses). Pursuant to
a no-contest plea entered in January of 2011, Attorney Belke was
convicted of misdemeanor operating while intoxicated (second
offense). The operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration
charge was dismissed on the prosecutor's motion. Attorney
Belke's sentence included 30 days in jail with Huber privileges,
a driver license revocation for 17 months, and ignition
interlock for 17 months. He was also ordered to undergo an
alcohol assessment and pay a fine. Attorney Belke failed to
notify the OLR of his misdemeanor operating while intoxicated
(second offense) conviction.
¶10 On February 14, 2011, Attorney Belke pled no contest
to and was convicted of both disorderly conduct (domestic abuse)
charges. The remaining charges, criminal damage to property
4
No. 2014AP41-D
(domestic abuse) and bail jumping, were dismissed but read-in at
sentencing. Attorney Belke's combined sentence included seven
days in jail and court costs. He was also allowed to move back
into his mother's residence. Attorney Belke failed to notify
the OLR of his two misdemeanor disorderly conduct (domestic
abuse) convictions.
¶11 On June 6, 2012, law enforcement responded to a
domestic disturbance between Attorney Belke and his mother at
their Princeton residence. As a result of his conduct, Attorney
Belke was arrested and charged with one count of misdemeanor
disorderly conduct (domestic abuse). At his initial appearance,
he pled guilty. A sentencing hearing was scheduled for June 26,
2012. Attorney Belke signed a $1,000 signature bond agreement
with conditions that he maintain absolute sobriety, have no
contact with his mother and her residence, and appear at all
court proceedings.
¶12 Attorney Belke failed to appear at his June 26, 2012
sentencing hearing and a warrant was issued. The following day,
he was charged with one count of misdemeanor bail jumping. Law
enforcement went to the Princeton residence to execute the
warrant on June 28, 2012. Upon arrival, Attorney Belke's mother
allowed the police officers into the basement where Attorney
Belke was sleeping. Attorney Belke was arrested. Officers
detected an odor of intoxicants emanating from him. Breath
alcohol tests performed both in the squad car and at the jail
demonstrated that Attorney Belke had consumed alcohol in
5
No. 2014AP41-D
violation of the terms of his bond agreement in the Green Lake
County case.
¶13 On June 29, 2012, Attorney Belke was charged with one
count of misdemeanor bail jumping. At his initial appearance,
he confirmed receipt of the criminal complaints in the Green
Lake County cases. On July 2, 2012, he signed a $500 signature
bond agreement with conditions that he maintain absolute
sobriety, not be on any premises licensed to sell alcohol by the
drink, and have no contact with his mother and her residence.
He also posted a $500 cash bond with identical conditions in the
other misdemeanor bail jumping case.
¶14 On July 3, 2012, a police officer identified Attorney
Belke outside of a bar in Princeton. The officer made contact
with Attorney Belke and a breath alcohol test performed on him
demonstrated that he had consumed alcohol in violation of the
terms of his various bond agreements. As a result, Attorney
Belke was arrested. He posted a $1,000 cash bond with
conditions that he maintain absolute sobriety and not be on any
premises licensed to sell alcohol by the drink. On July 6,
2012, he was charged with three counts of misdemeanor bail
jumping.
¶15 On August 14, 2012, pursuant to a plea agreement,
Attorney Belke pled no contest to and was convicted of the
misdemeanor disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) charge that
arose out of the June 6, 2012 domestic disturbance between
Attorney Belke and his mother. He also pled no contest to two
misdemeanor bail jumping charges arising out of the July 3, 2012
6
No. 2014AP41-D
arrest. The remaining bail jumping charges were dismissed but
read-in at sentencing. Attorney Belke's sentence included two
years of probation with sentence withheld and conditions that he
not possess any firearms, maintain absolute sobriety, not be on
any premises licensed to sell alcohol by the drink, not possess
any alcohol where he resides, undergo and comply with an alcohol
and drug assessment, not have any violent contact with his
mother, maintain full-time employment, and abide by any other
rules or recommendations as imposed by the supervising probation
agent. Attorney Belke failed to notify the OLR of his
misdemeanor disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) conviction and
his two misdemeanor bail jumping convictions.
¶16 On September 23, 2012, a deputy responded to a roll-
over vehicle crash in Marquette County. Upon arrival, the
deputy located the vehicle and its driver and sole occupant,
later identified as Attorney Belke. A witness to the accident
smelled intoxicants on Attorney Belke's breath. Emergency
medical service personnel reported intoxicants. Attorney Belke
was transported to a hospital for treatment, where a chemical
test of his blood showed his blood alcohol level to be .283. On
October 29, 2012, Attorney Belke was charged with operating
while intoxicated (third offense), operating with a prohibited
alcohol content (third offense), and ignition interlock device
tampering/failure to install. On June 12, 2013, Attorney Belke
pled no contest to and was convicted of misdemeanor operating
while intoxicated (third offense). The other charges were
dismissed on the prosecutor's motion. His sentence included 120
7
No. 2014AP41-D
days in jail with Huber privileges, a driver license revocation
for 32 months, and ignition interlock for 32 months. He was
also ordered to undergo an alcohol assessment and pay a fine.
¶17 The OLR's complaint alleged and, by virtue of the
stipulation, Attorney Belke pled no contest to the following
counts of misconduct:
[Count One] By engaging in conduct leading to
his August 26, 2010 misdemeanor conviction of
disorderly conduct in Milwaukee County . . . that
reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or
fitness as a lawyer in other respects, [Attorney]
Belke violated SCR 20:8.4(b).2
[Count Two] By engaging in conduct leading to
his January 3, 2011 misdemeanor conviction of
Operating While Intoxicated (2nd) in Dane County . . .
that reflects adversely on his honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 20:8.4(b).
[Count Three] By engaging in conduct leading to
his February 14, 2011 misdemeanor conviction of
disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) in Green Lake
County . . . that reflects adversely on his honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 20:8.4(b).
[Count Four] By engaging in conduct leading to
his February 14, 2011 misdemeanor conviction of
disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) in Green Lake
County . . . that reflects adversely on his honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 20:8.4(b).
2
SCR 20:8.4(b) provides that it is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely
on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer
in other respects."
8
No. 2014AP41-D
[Count Five] Be engaging in conduct leading to
his August 14, 1012 misdemeanor conviction of
disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) in Green Lake
County . . . that reflects adversely on his honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 20:8.4(b).
[Count Six] In each instance, by engaging in
conduct leading to his August 14, 2012 two-count
misdemeanor conviction of bail jumping in Green Lake
County . . . that reflects adversely on his honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 20:8.4(b).
[Count Seven] By engaging in conduct leading to
his June 12, 2013 misdemeanor conviction of Operating
While Intoxicated (3rd) in Marquette County . . . that
reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or
fitness as a lawyer in other respects, [Attorney]
Belke violated SCR 20:8.4(b).
[Count Eight] By failing to report his
misdemeanor conviction of disorderly conduct in
Milwaukee County . . . to OLR and the Clerk of the
Supreme Court, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 21.15(5),3
enforced under SCR 20:8.4(f).4
3
SCR 21.15(5) provides:
An attorney found guilty or convicted of any
crime on or after July 1, 2002, shall notify in
writing the office of lawyer regulation and the clerk
of the Supreme Court within 5 days after the finding
or conviction, whichever first occurs. The notice
shall include the identity of the attorney, the date
of finding or conviction, the offenses, and the
jurisdiction. An attorney’s failure to notify the
office of lawyer regulation and clerk of the supreme
court of being found guilty or his or her conviction
is misconduct.
4
SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that 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."
9
No. 2014AP41-D
[Count Nine] By failing to report his
misdemeanor conviction of Operating While Intoxicated
(2nd) in Dane County . . . to OLR and the Clerk of the
Supreme Court, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 21.15(5),
enforced under SCR 20:8.4(f).
[Count Ten] By failing to report his misdemeanor
conviction of disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) in
Green Lake County . . . to OLR and the Clerk of the
Supreme Court, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 21.15(5),
enforced under SCR 20:8.4(f).
[Count 11] By failing to report his misdemeanor
conviction of disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) in
Green Lake County . . . to OLR and the Clerk of the
Supreme Court, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 21.15(5),
enforced under SCR 20:8.4(f).
[Count 12] By failing to report his misdemeanor
conviction of disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) in
Green Lake County . . . to OLR and the Clerk of the
Supreme Court, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 21.15(5),
enforced under SCR 20:8.4(f).
[Count 13] By failing to report his two-count
misdemeanor conviction of bail jumping in Green Lake
County . . . to OLR and the Clerk of the Supreme
Court, [Attorney] Belke violated SCR 21.15(5),
enforced under SCR 20:8.4(f).
¶18 The OLR sought a four-month suspension. Attorney
Belke argued that a public reprimand was an appropriate level of
discipline. The referee concluded that a 90-day suspension was
appropriate. While the referee said he believed that the facts
supported a conclusion that Attorney Belke's conduct
demonstrated a significant lapse in judgment and self-discipline
and also demonstrated a disregard for public safety, the referee
concluded that cases cited by the OLR in which attorneys'
licenses were suspended for six months presented more egregious
10
No. 2014AP41-D
fact situations, either because they involved felonies or
because the attorneys' misconduct involved fraud.
¶19 The referee noted that Attorney Belke's conduct did
not involve dishonesty or failure to represent clients. The
referee also noted that Attorney Belke has been in compliance
with all treatment recommendations of all substance abuse
providers, has abstained from all alcohol or other mood-altering
substances, and has regularly participated in community-based
support groups, such as Alcoholics Anonymous. The referee also
pointed to Attorney Belke's lack of any prior disciplinary
history. Based on what the referee termed "these mitigating
factors," the referee concluded that a 90-day suspension was
appropriate. As a condition, the referee recommends that
Attorney Belke continue to participate in a monitoring contract
with WisLAP and that he comply with the contract conditions
relating to assessment and treatment.
¶20 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.
¶21 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings
of fact are clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we adopt them. We
also agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney
Belke violated the supreme court rules set forth above.
11
No. 2014AP41-D
¶22 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline,
upon careful review of the matter, we conclude that the four-
month suspension originally sought by the OLR is appropriate.
While the referee correctly points out that Attorney Belke has
no prior disciplinary history and that his misconduct does not
involve dishonesty or a failure to adequately represent his
clients, the conduct at issue here is nevertheless troubling.
We agree with the referee that Attorney Belke's multiple
operating while intoxicated convictions, multiple misdemeanor
convictions of disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) involving his
mother, and multiple bail jumping convictions demonstrate a very
significant lapse in judgment and a very serious disregard for
public safety. While no two attorney disciplinary matters are
precisely analogous, we find In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Cahill, 219 Wis. 2d 330, 579 N.W.2d 231 (1998) to be
somewhat similar.
¶23 In Cahill, during a 16-month period, the attorney
engaged in conduct that led to eight misdemeanor convictions,
including operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated,
defrauding an innkeeper, disorderly conduct, and issuing a
worthless check. The referee in the instant case cited Cahill
in his report and commented that Attorney Cahill's misconduct
was more serious than Attorney Belke's because Attorney Cahill
was convicted of an additional misdemeanor and because her
misconduct involved fraud. As in the instant case, none of the
offenses of which Attorney Cahill was convicted involved a
client or her conduct as a lawyer.
12
No. 2014AP41-D
¶24 While we agree with the referee that the number of
misdemeanor convictions and the nature of the convictions in
this case may be somewhat less serious than in Cahill, we
nevertheless conclude that the 90-day suspension recommended by
the referee would be insufficient to impress upon Attorney Belke
the seriousness of his misconduct and deter him and others from
committing similar misconduct in the future. The attorney in
Cahill received a six-month suspension for conduct that was
arguably more egregious than that at issue here. We conclude
that a four-month suspension of Attorney Belke's license to
practice law is more commensurate with the number and nature of
offenses at issue than the 90-day suspension recommended by the
referee.
¶25 We agree with the referee that Attorney Belke should
be required to continue to participate in a monitoring contract
with WisLAP and to comply with all contract conditions relating
to assessment and treatment. We further agree with the referee
that Attorney Belke should be required to pay the full costs of
the proceeding.
¶26 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Paul G. Belke to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of four
months, effective May 24, 2015.
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of the
reinstatement of his license to practice law following the
suspension and as a condition of his continued practice of law
thereafter, Paul G. Belke shall be required to continue to
participate in a monitoring contract with the Wisconsin Lawyers
13
No. 2014AP41-D
Assistance Program and to fully comply with all contract
conditions. Attorney Belke shall continue to participate in the
monitoring contract for a period of one year after the
reinstatement of his license to practice law following the
termination of the suspension.
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Paul G. Belke shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $3,316.55.
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Paul G. Belke 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.
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See
SCR 22.28(2).
14
No. 2014AP41-D
1