Office of Lawyer Regulation v. William J. Spangler

2016 WI 61
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2014AP2633-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against William J. Spangler, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Spangler,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SPANGLER
OPINION FILED: July 8, 2016
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2016 WI 61
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2014AP2633-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against William J. Spangler, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant, JUL 8, 2016
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
William J. Spangler, Clerk of Supreme Court
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report and supplemental
report filed by referee James R. Erickson recommending that
Attorney William J. Spangler's license to practice law in
Wisconsin be suspended for 60 days for seven counts of
professional misconduct involving two client matters. The
referee also recommends that Attorney Spangler pay the full
No. 2014AP2633-D
costs of the proceeding, which are $6,678.43 as of March 29,
2016.
¶2 Upon careful review of the matter, we adopt the
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law. We conclude,
however, that rather than the 60-day suspension stipulated by
the parties and recommended by the referee, a six-month
suspension of Attorney Spangler's license to practice law in
Wisconsin is the appropriate sanction for his misconduct. We
also agree with the referee that the full costs of the
proceeding should be assessed against Attorney Spangler.
¶3 Attorney Spangler was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 2003 and practices in Eau Claire. He has no prior
disciplinary history.
¶4 On November 13, 2014, the Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney Spangler alleging four
counts of misconduct arising out of Attorney Spangler's
representation of F.M. The complaint averred that in June 2007,
Attorney Spangler filed a lawsuit on behalf of F.M. in Eau
Claire County circuit court. Attorney Spangler was not able to
obtain service of an authenticated copy of the summons and
complaint on the defendant, and the case was dismissed.
Attorney Spangler refiled the complaint in August 2008. This
time the defendant was served. The lawsuit alleged that F.M.
and the defendant had an oral partnership to purchase real
estate and that F.M. had provided funds to purchase and build a
condominium fourplex. F.M. sought an accounting and/or
dissolution of the partnership. The parties agreed to the
2
No. 2014AP2633-D
termination of the partnership relationship but not to the
specific terms of dissolution. The lawsuit continued for the
purpose of obtaining a court determination as to the respective
rights and property ownership of the parties.
¶5 The circuit court allowed the parties a significant
amount of time to discuss settlement of the matter. In late
2009 a scheduling order was issued setting the matter for a one-
day trial to the court on April 20, 2010. In correspondence to
the Eau Claire County clerk of circuit court dated April 12,
2010, Attorney Spangler stated that the parties had reached a
settlement and that F.M. desired to dismiss the lawsuit.
Attorney Spangler copied opposing counsel on this letter but did
not copy F.M. The court signed an order dismissing the matter
without prejudice to either party on April 14, 2010, and the
order was filed the following day.
¶6 Attorney Spangler had not consulted with F.M. or
obtained F.M.'s approval prior to proposing and agreeing to the
dismissal of the lawsuit, nor did he inform his client that the
suit had been dismissed. Instead, Attorney Spangler made a
series of misrepresentations and created a series of false
documents to mislead his client as to the status of the lawsuit
and its outcome.
¶7 In November 2010, despite knowing that the suit had
been dismissed, Attorney Spangler spoke to F.M. by telephone and
represented to him that a judgment had been obtained in F.M.'s
favor but that collecting on the judgment would be difficult
given the state of the real estate market at the time and the
3
No. 2014AP2633-D
defendant's financial situation. To support his claim to F.M.
that a judgment had been obtained, Attorney Spangler created
fake findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order in the
matter dated October 14, 2009. While Attorney Spangler did not
forge the judge's signature on the document, he entered "/s/" on
the signature line above the judge's name. Attorney Spangler
did not provide this document to anyone but F.M. Attorney
Spangler also created a fake judgment in the case, stating that
F.M. "shall be repaid his initial investment in an amount of
$102,000" and F.M. "does have an [sic] recover of defendant
taxable costs and disbursement in the amount of $84,243."
Again, Attorney Spangler did not forge the judge's actual
signature on the fake judgment, but on the signature line above
the judge's name entered "/s/." Again, Attorney Spangler did not
provide this document to anyone but F.M.
¶8 F.M. subsequently asked Attorney Spangler to pursue
the defendant's insurance company for payment. Attorney
Spangler prepared a demand letter addressed to the insurance
company, dated June 17, 2011. The letter referred to previous
correspondence from Attorney Spangler to the insurance company
and stated a demand for $200,000. The letter stated that in the
absence of payment of the demand amount within ten days,
Attorney Spangler would proceed with legal action against the
insurance company. While the letter indicated it was being
copied to F.M., the Wisconsin commissioner of insurance, and
counsel for the defendant, Attorney Spangler did not provide a
copy of the letter to anyone but F.M.
4
No. 2014AP2633-D
¶9 On August 1, 2011, Attorney Spangler prepared and
signed a letter facially addressed to the Eau Claire County
clerk of court purportedly enclosing an original and four copies
of a complaint against the insurance company. Attorney Spangler
also prepared and signed with a date of July 29, 2011, a civil
complaint against the insurance company. The complaint that
Attorney Spangler drafted and provided to F.M. in the purported
action against the insurance company also showed a fabricated
file stamp indicating that the civil complaint was filed in Eau
Claire County circuit court on August 9, 2011. Attorney
Spangler did not provide these documents to anyone but F.M. He
never filed the cover letter or the civil complaint in circuit
court but instead used those documents to mislead F.M. as to the
status of the representation and the steps taken on the client's
behalf.
¶10 On May 6, 2010, Attorney Spangler created a fake order
suspending license purporting to suspend a real estate license
held by the defendant. The fake order was purportedly issued by
the chair of the Wisconsin Realty Board. Attorney Spangler did
not forge an actual signature on the fake suspension order that
he created, but on the signature line above the chair's name,
Attorney Spangler typed "/William H. Hendricks/." There was no
proceeding resulting in an order of suspension against the
defendant, and "Wisconsin Realty Board" is not the name of any
Wisconsin regulatory entity.
¶11 Prior to December 2011, while Attorney Spangler was
still trying to perpetuate the fraud of having obtained a
5
No. 2014AP2633-D
judgment and pursued collection, he provided F.M. with at least
$45,000 of his own money as funds purportedly obtained toward
partial satisfaction of the fake judgment.
¶12 F.M. eventually consulted with other counsel and in
December of 2011, Attorney Spangler's lies and fabrications came
to light. In late December 2011, the defendant's counsel was
contacted by F.M.'s new attorneys and was provided with copies
of at least some of the fake documents created by Attorney
Spangler. On or about December 30, 2011, the defendant's
counsel contacted and then met with Attorney Spangler, who
admitted he had drafted a series of false documents relating to
the case. Attorney Spangler and counsel for the defendant each
then promptly notified the court in writing of the fabricated
documents that Attorney Spangler had produced.
¶13 F.M.'s civil claims against Attorney Spangler were
resolved pursuant to a January 2012 settlement agreement and
release, whereby Attorney Spangler agreed to execute a
promissory note and pay F.M. the sum of $125,000. Attorney
Spangler satisfied the promissory note in December 2012.
¶14 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of
misconduct with respect to Attorney Spangler's representation of
F.M.:
[Count 1] By agreeing to the dismissal of [F.M.'s Eau
Claire County lawsuit], without having consulted with
his client, [F.M.], or having his client's consent to
6
No. 2014AP2633-D
the stipulated dismissal of the lawsuit, [Attorney]
Spangler violated SCR 20:1.2(a).1
[Count 2] By agreeing to the dismissal of [F.M.'s Eau
Claire County lawsuit], without having consulted with
his client, [F.M.], or having obtained his client's
consent to the stipulated dismissal of the lawsuit,
[Attorney] Spangler violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(1) and (2).2
[Count 3] By failing to provide [F.M.] with accurate
information as to case status and his efforts taken on
[F.M.'s] behalf, [Attorney] Spangler violated SCR
20:1.4(a)(3).3
[Count 4] By intentionally providing false
information to [F.M.] regarding case status and his
efforts taken on [F.M.'s] behalf, and further, by
creating fake documents to lend support to the
1
SCR 20:1.2(a) provides:
Subject to pars. (c) and (d), a lawyer shall abide by
a client's decisions concerning the objectives of
representation and, as required by SCR 20:1.4, shall
consult with the client as to the means by which they
are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on
behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to
carry out the representation. A lawyer shall abide by
a client's decision whether to settle a matter. In a
criminal case or any proceeding that could result in
deprivation of liberty, the lawyer shall abide by the
client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer,
as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury
trial and whether the client will testify.
2
SCR 20:1.4(a)(1) and (2) provide: "A lawyer shall: (1)
Promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with
respect to which the client's informed consent, as defined in
SCR 20:1.0(f), is required by these rules; (2) reasonably
consult with the client about the means by which the client's
objectives are to be accomplished."
3
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides that a lawyer shall "keep the
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter."
7
No. 2014AP2633-D
misrepresentations made to his client, [Attorney]
Spangler violated SCR 20:8.4(c).4
¶15 Attorney Spangler filed an answer to the OLR's
complaint on January 12, 2015. The referee was appointed on
January 27, 2015.
¶16 On April 1, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation
whereby Attorney Spangler admitted the allegations in the OLR's
complaint. The parties jointly recommended the imposition of a
public reprimand. The stipulation provided that the referee
may, if he saw fit, adopt paragraphs 1-27 of the stipulation as
his findings of fact and adopt paragraphs 28-31 of the
stipulation as his conclusions of law. On April 16, 2015, the
referee issued a report expressly adopting by reference and
incorporating as though fully set forth in the report paragraphs
1-31 of the stipulation. The referee said he was satisfied that
the parties' agreement for a public reprimand was an appropriate
level of discipline.
¶17 On June 23, 2015, this court ordered the parties to
show cause why a suspension of Attorney Spangler's license,
rather than a public reprimand, should not be imposed. The OLR
filed a response on July 6, 2015. On August 6, 2015, this court
4
SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation."
8
No. 2014AP2633-D
granted Attorney Spangler's motion for an extension of time to
file a response. On August 26, 2015, the parties filed a joint
motion to remand the matter to the referee for additional
findings. The motion averred that counsel for Attorney Spangler
had informed the OLR that they had received additional documents
from counsel for Attorney Spangler's former law firm revealing
an additional possible violation of Wisconsin supreme court
rules that was substantially the same in nature as the violation
involved in the pending action and occurring during roughly the
same time frame as the conduct at issue in the pending
proceeding. The parties agreed that the new information would
be best processed in conjunction with and in the context of the
existing disciplinary proceeding. The OLR said it was likely
that the new information would result in a supplemental or
amended stipulation and in the referee supplementing or
otherwise amending his report. This court granted the motion
for remand to the referee on September 10, 2015.
¶18 On March 7, 2016, the parties filed an additional
stipulation which set forth three additional counts of
professional misconduct arising out of Attorney Spangler's
representation of F.B. The stipulation stated that between
September 2003 and February 2011, Attorney Spangler was employed
as an attorney by the law firm of Weld, Riley, Prenn & Ricci,
S.C. [Weld Riley] in Eau Claire and practiced in the areas of
9
No. 2014AP2633-D
transactional work, real estate work, and some estate planning
work.
¶19 The stipulation stated that in December 2006, F.B.
sent Attorney Spangler a letter saying that he owned 50% of a
Wisconsin limited liability company, that his partner and
another person were trying to force him out, and that he would
like to file suit for breach of contract.
¶20 The stipulation stated that on or about January 5,
2007, an attorney of the Weld Riley law firm met with F.B. to
discuss representing him in regard to the business dispute. On
or about January 11, 2007, the Weld Riley attorney sent F.B. an
engagement letter saying that the attorney and Attorney Spangler
would be the principal attorneys assigned to the case.
¶21 On January 22, 2007, Attorney Spangler sent a draft
complaint to F.B. Attorney Spangler was also in communication
with the attorney representing F.B.'s business partners in an
attempt to negotiate a resolution to the dispute. During the
first half of 2007, letters exchanged between Attorney Spangler
and counsel for the other side did not result in a settlement of
the disputed issues. On April 16, 2007, the attorney for F.B.'s
business partner sent Attorney Spangler a settlement offer in
the amount of $30,000. Attorney Spangler transmitted that offer
to F.B., but the offer was not acceptable to F.B. and he
rejected it.
10
No. 2014AP2633-D
¶22 On May 19, 2007, Attorney Spangler sent an internal
memorandum to the head of litigation at Weld Riley, noting that
the F.B. matter was "a somewhat complicated business divorce"
that was "now ripe for litigation." Attorney Spangler asked "if
someone would be able to handle litigation on this matter" for
him. The stipulation avers that Attorney Spangler never wanted
to handle litigation, did not know what he was doing with
litigation, and was reaching out to request that one of his
litigation colleagues handle the matter.
¶23 Attorney Spangler provided a copy of a draft complaint
to one of the litigation associates at Weld Riley for review.
In July 2007, a draft complaint, summons, and letter
transmitting the complaint to the Eau Claire County circuit
court clerk were prepared bearing signature lines for the
litigation associate's signature. The documents were never sent
or filed with the court. On August 14, 2007, Attorney Spangler
emailed F.B. saying he had received a voice mail message from
F.B. and that he and his litigation colleague were "finalizing a
summons and complaint which we can file assuming the liquidation
took place as we believe it did." On August 22, 2007, F.B. sent
Attorney Spangler an email giving him a "green light" on
drafting the summons and complaint.
¶24 Attorney Spangler subsequently sent F.B. a draft
complaint for his review. The complaint was revised several
11
No. 2014AP2633-D
times until F.B. was satisfied with it. Attorney Spangler
fabricated a purported letter of transmittal on Weld Riley law
firm letterhead addressed to the Eau Claire County clerk of
circuit court stating that an original and three copies of a
summons and complaint, along with a check in the amount of $256
in payment of the filing fee, were enclosed. The purported
letter was never sent to the clerk of court, but it was sent to
F.B. The letter was created by Attorney Spangler for the sole
purpose of misleading F.B. into believing Attorney Spangler was
sending the complaint with a summons to the clerk of court
commencing a lawsuit on F.B.'s behalf. Attorney Spangler
printed across the top of each of the eight pages of the
complaint "cv-1105200704 Monday, November 05, 2007 10:21 EAU
CLAIRE COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS" to make it appear that such
complaint had in fact been filed in the Eau Claire County clerk
of courts' office. On the first page of the complaint, Attorney
Spangler affixed a partial ink stamp saying "RECEIVED NOV 05."
The complaint was never sent to or filed with the Eau Claire
County clerk of court.
¶25 Attorney Spangler provided a copy of the transmittal
letter and complaint to F.B. F.B. reasonably believed the
documents to be an authentic filing with the Eau Claire County
circuit court when, in fact, the documents had been fabricated
and created only to deceive F.B.
12
No. 2014AP2633-D
¶26 Over the course of approximately five years, Attorney
Spangler continued the ruse, repeatedly making false
representations to F.B. about developments, events, and
occurrences as the non-existing case supposedly progressed.
Among the reasons that Attorney Spangler told F.B. the case was
moving slowly were the outcome of a supposed summary judgment
motion that Attorney Spangler told F.B. he had filed and a
forthcoming opinion that Attorney Spangler told F.B. the
Wisconsin supreme court was expected to issue in a case with
issues relevant to issues in F.B.'s supposed case.
¶27 When Attorney Spangler left the Weld Riley law firm in
early 2011 and joined with other attorneys in establishing a new
law firm, F.B. continued as Attorney Spangler's client.
Attorney Spangler's deception of F.B. ultimately included the
creation of a false settlement, fabrication of a release, and
Attorney Spangler's use of his own money to pay F.B. $75,000.
The money was falsely presented to F.B. as purportedly emanating
from a settling party when in fact no such settlement existed.
¶28 The stipulation averred that the OLR's additional fact
finding revealed that Attorney Spangler committed the following
counts of misconduct with respect to his representation of F.B.:
By misleading [F.B.] into believing that he had filed
and had, for years, been prosecuting a lawsuit on
[F.B's] behalf against his former business associate,
in accordance with [F.B.'s] decision to proceed with
such litigation, when he had, in fact, never filed
13
No. 2014AP2633-D
such lawsuit, [Attorney] Spangler failed to abide by
his client's decision concerning the objectives of
representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.2(a).
By informing [F.B.] that he had filed a lawsuit on
[F.B.'s] behalf against his former business associate;
he was, for years, actively prosecuting such pending
lawsuit; and [F.B.'s] case was settled by the
defendants paying $80,000 with an exchange of releases
when [Attorney] Spangler knew no lawsuit had ever been
filed, [Attorney] Spangler failed to keep the client
reasonably informed about the status of the matter,
contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a)(3, and also that [Attorney]
Spangler failed to explain a matter to the extent
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make an
informed decision regarding the misrepresentation,
contrary to SCR 20:1.4(b).5
By fabricating a false complaint and a bogus letter of
transmittal to the Clerk of Court which was provided
to [F.B.] with the intent to deceive him, by
intentionally misrepresenting to [F.B.] that a lawsuit
had been filed on his behalf and was, for years, being
prosecuted against his former business associate, by
falsely leading his client to believe that a motion
for summary judgment was filed and denied by the
Court and by falsely informing [F.B.] that his former
business associate had paid $80,000 in connection with
a settlement of the lawsuit and the signing of
releases, [Attorney] Spangler engaged in conduct
involving dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation, in
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).
¶29 The stipulation noted that Attorney Spangler's counsel
forwarded four affidavits on Attorney Spangler's behalf, which
were reviewed and considered by the OLR director. The
affidavits included testimony from two character witnesses who
have known Attorney Spangler personally and professionally, an
5
SCR 20:1.4(b) provides: "A lawyer shall explain a matter
to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make
informed decisions regarding the representation."
14
No. 2014AP2633-D
affidavit of Attorney Spangler's counsel regarding counsel's
communications with F.B., who advised Attorney Spangler's
counsel that he was satisfied with the $75,000 he received from
Attorney Spangler as a settlement for the lawsuit that was never
brought, and an affidavit of Attorney Spangler in which he notes
the professional and personal cost he has borne because of his
actions. The parties agreed and stipulated that a 60-day
suspension of Attorney Spangler's license to practice law was an
appropriate sanction for his misconduct. The parties requested
the referee to approve the additional stipulation and file a
supplemental or amended report and recommendation.
¶30 On March 7, 2016, the referee filed a supplemental
report adopting paragraphs numbered 1-23 in the second
stipulation as additional findings of fact and adopting as
conclusions of law paragraphs 24a-24c of the second stipulation.
¶31 The referee agreed with the parties that a 60-day
suspension of Attorney Spangler's license was an appropriate
sanction. While the referee agreed that Attorney Spangler
clearly breached his legal duties to his clients, the legal
profession, the public interest, and the rules of professional
conduct, the referee noted that Attorney Spangler "has stepped
forward as a responsible person by fully admitting his
professional failures." The referee also noted Attorney
Spangler has provided financial recompense to the satisfaction
15
No. 2014AP2633-D
of his client. In addition, the referee said the three
affidavits supplied by Attorney Spangler were further evidence
of the high community respect for Attorney Spangler. The
referee said:
The sad thing about this whole matter is that there
was no need for [Attorney Spangler] to mislead his
client. All that [Attorney Spangler] needed to do was
to admit to his law firm that he felt incapable of
taking on and initiating contested litigation. If the
law firm was unsympathetic, he could have expressed
his regrets to his client and turned down the case,
referring the client to outside counsel. Instead, he
took on years of subterfuge in misleading the client.
¶32 Considering all of the rather unusual circumstances
involved, the referee agreed with the parties that a 60-day
suspension was an appropriate sanction. The referee also
recommended that Attorney Spangler pay the costs of the
proceeding.
¶33 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.
¶34 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings
of fact are clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we adopt them. We
16
No. 2014AP2633-D
also agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney
Spangler violated the supreme court rules set forth above.
¶35 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline,
upon careful review of the matter, we conclude that a 60-day
suspension is an inadequate sanction. Attorney Spangler's
actions in the two cases at issue here are troubling. Attorney
Spangler engaged in an elaborate web of deception that included
creating false documents and meticulously adding fake file
stamps and other notations to make them appear to be genuine.
He managed to perpetuate his ruses for years, leading his
clients to believe that they had live lawsuits pending when, in
fact, Attorney Spangler had voluntarily dismissed F.M.'s suit
and never filed F.B.'s action.
¶36 In many cases that come before this court, an attorney
accepts a retainer and then fails to do the work for which he or
she was retained. Such behavior is undoubtedly serious, but it
is a passive type of error. Attorney Spangler's conduct in
creating a series of false documents for the sole purpose of
misleading his clients into believing that they had lawsuits
pending was an affirmative act of deception and a betrayal of
the trust his clients placed in him.
¶37 We recognize that there are a number of mitigating
factors here. Attorney Spangler has no prior disciplinary
history. The conduct at issue occurred between 2007 and 2011.
17
No. 2014AP2633-D
We note that in its response to this court's order to show
cause, the OLR commented that Attorney Spangler had alerted the
OLR to some significant family concerns and problems and,
according to Attorney Spangler, F.M. turned out to be a
difficult client with whom Attorney Spangler did not feel he
could be candid once he concluded F.M.'s case was not as strong
as Attorney Spangler initially thought. We also note that
Attorney Spangler has repeatedly expressed remorse for his
misconduct and he has paid restitution to both clients. We have
also reviewed the affidavits filed on Attorney Spangler's behalf
and note that the affiants speak highly of him and find him to
be trustworthy. Nonetheless, the seriousness of the misconduct
at issue here leads us to conclude that a suspension in excess
of 60 days is warranted.
¶38 Although no two disciplinary proceedings are
identical, we note that on at least two prior occasions, we
disciplined attorneys who falsified documents. In In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fitzgerald, 2006 WI 58, 290
Wis. 2d 713, 714 N.W.2d 925, an attorney told her client that an
insurance company was willing to settle her claims for a payment
of some $5,000 and that the insurance company would also pay the
client's medical bills when, in fact, no such offer was ever
made. To perpetuate the ruse that a settlement had been made,
the attorney deposited personal funds into her business account
18
No. 2014AP2633-D
and then transferred those funds to her trust account for the
purpose of using the funds to pay her client her proportionate
share of the purported settlement. The attorney was suspended
for 90 days. She had no prior disciplinary history.
¶39 In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mauch, 2007
WI 109, 304 Wis. 2d 541, 736 N.W.2d 141, an attorney deceived a
client into believing his case had been settled and used his own
funds to pay the alleged settlement. The attorney's license was
suspended for 90 days. Attorney Mauch had previously been
publicly reprimanded on two occasions.
¶40 Even though Attorney Spangler has no prior
disciplinary history and even though we acknowledge the
existence of various other mitigating factors, we conclude that
the misconduct at issue here is more serious than the misconduct
at issue in either Fitzgerald or Mauch and calls for a more
severe sanction. The ruses in Fitzgerald and Mauch were of
relatively short duration and involved only one case. By
contrast, Attorney Spangler falsified documents in two cases
and, over the span of years, created a whole host of documents
for the sole purpose of misleading his clients into believing
that their suits were pending when in fact they were not.
Accordingly, we conclude that a six-month suspension of Attorney
Spangler's license to practice law in Wisconsin is an
appropriate sanction. A six-month suspension, which will
19
No. 2014AP2633-D
require Attorney Spangler to file a petition for reinstatement,
see SCR 22.28(3), will impress upon him the seriousness of his
misconduct and deter other attorneys from engaging in similar
misconduct in the future. We agree with the referee that
Attorney Spangler should bear the full costs of this proceeding.
¶41 IT IS ORDERED that the license of William J. Spangler
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six
months, effective August 12, 2016.
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, William J. Spangler shall pay to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are
$6,678.43.
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William J. Spangler shall
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of
an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended.
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See SCR
22.28(2).
20
No. 2014AP2633-D
1