Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Stephen M. Compton

2013 WI 42SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2010AP1118-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Stephen M. Compton, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Stephen M. Compton,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COMPTON
OPINION FILED: May 17, 2013
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2013 WI 42NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2010AP1118-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Stephen M. Compton, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
MAY 17, 2013
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Stephen M. Compton,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted
upon conditions.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed by referee
James J. Winiarski recommending that the court reinstate, with
conditions, the license of Stephen M. Compton to practice law in
Wisconsin. After careful review of the matter, we agree that
Attorney Compton's license should be reinstated and that
conditions should be placed upon his resumption of the practice
of law. We also agree with the referee that Attorney Compton
No. 2010AP1118-D
should be required to pay the costs of this reinstatement
proceeding, which are $4,373.03 as of March 11, 2013.
¶2 Attorney Compton was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1992. He resides in Waukesha County. In 2002, he
was publicly reprimanded for falsely recording the time he
worked on a contingency fee case. Public Reprimand of
Stephen M. Compton, No. 2002-6. In 2008, Attorney Compton's
license to practice law was suspended for 60 days for misconduct
related to failing to supervise an inmate performing legal work
for him and falsely billing the state public defender for work
performed by that inmate. In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Compton, 2008 WI 3, 306 Wis. 2d 280, 744 N.W.2d 78.
¶3 In 2009, Attorney Compton was charged with felony
criminal conduct in Walworth County. He was ultimately
convicted of possession of narcotic drugs (heroin), a Class I
felony, and felony bail jumping, a Class H felony. Two
additional misdemeanor criminal charges for possession of
cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia were dismissed but
read in.
¶4 On March 3, 2010, the Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR) filed a motion seeking the summary suspension of Attorney
Compton's law license based on the criminal convictions.
Attorney Compton did not contest the motion, and this court
summarily suspended his law license on March 16, 2010.
¶5 In May of 2010, the OLR filed a disciplinary complaint
alleging Attorney Compton's criminal conduct and seeking a two-
year license suspension. Attorney Compton stipulated to the
2
No. 2010AP1118-D
facts, misconduct, and sanction. On September 8, 2010, this
court suspended Attorney Compton's law license for a period of
two years, retroactive to March 16, 2010, the date of the
summary suspension. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Compton, 2010 WI 112, 329 Wis. 2d 318, 787 N.W.2d 831.
¶6 Attorney Compton filed a petition for the
reinstatement of his law license on March 12, 2012. The OLR
filed its response to the petition for reinstatement on
November 2, 2012, and did not oppose the petition. A public
hearing on the reinstatement petition was held on December 18,
2012. The referee filed his report and recommendation on
February 19, 2013.
¶7 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1)1 provides the standards to
be met for reinstatement. Specifically, the petitioner must
1
SCR 22.31(1) states:
The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating,
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all
of the following:
(a) That he or she has the moral character to
practice law in Wisconsin.
(b) That his or her resumption of the practice of
law will not be detrimental to the administration of
justice or subversive of the public interest.
(c) That his or her representations in the
petition, including the representations required by
SCR 22.29(4)(a) to [(4m)] and 22.29(5), are
substantiated.
(d) That he or she has complied fully with the
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and
with the requirements of SCR 22.26.
3
No. 2010AP1118-D
show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or
she has the moral character to practice law, that his or her
resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the
administration of justice or subversive of the public interest,
and that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of
the order of suspension. In addition to these requirements,
SCRs 22.29(4)(a)-(4m)2 provide additional requirements that a
2
SCR 22.29(4)(a) through (4m) provides that a petition for
reinstatement shall show all of the following:
(a) The petitioner desires to have the
petitioner's license reinstated.
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during
the period of suspension or revocation.
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and
will continue to comply with them until the
petitioner's license is reinstated.
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and
learning in the law by attendance at identified
educational activities.
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension
or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach.
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of
and attitude toward the standards that are imposed
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity
with the standards.
(g) The petitioner can safely 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 courts.
4
No. 2010AP1118-D
petition for reinstatement must show. All of these additional
requirements are effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1).
¶8 When we review a referee's report and recommendation,
we will adopt the referee's findings of fact unless they are
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.
¶9 We conclude the referee's findings support a
determination that Attorney Compton has met his burden to
establish by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence that
he has met all of the standards required for reinstatement.
¶10 The referee noted that during the term of his
suspension, Attorney Compton has not practiced law and has
worked primarily as a landscaper. The referee found that
Attorney Compton has fully complied with the terms of the order
of suspension and that he was not required to make any
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26.
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license
if reinstated.
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's
business activities during the period of suspension or
revocation.
(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by
petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to
the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection for
all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability
to do so.
5
No. 2010AP1118-D
restitution or settle any claims caused by his misconduct. The
referee found that Attorney Compton has maintained competence
and learning in the law by attending various educational
activities. The referee also found that Attorney Compton's
conduct since the time of the suspension has been exemplary and
above reproach.
¶11 The referee found that Attorney Compton has a proper
understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are
imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with
those standards. The referee found that Attorney Compton can
safely 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 courts.
The referee noted that if his license to practice law is
reinstated, Attorney Compton intends to engage in the general
practice of law, probably as a sole practitioner.
¶12 The referee found that, according to statements
Attorney Compton made to Walworth County sheriff's deputies at
the time of his 2009 arrest, Attorney Compton began using
illegal drugs around 2006, and he admitted being "coked up"
while handling legal cases in court. The referee noted that
Deputy Sergeant Patek of the Walworth County Sheriff's
Department testified at the reinstatement hearing that Attorney
Compton's conduct before his arrest included possession and
delivery of both heroin and cocaine. Deputy Sheriff Long of the
6
No. 2010AP1118-D
Walworth County Sheriff's Department testified that Attorney
Compton's conduct before his arrest had a major impact on a
woman who was a significant person in Attorney Compton's life,
and the woman ultimately lost her teaching license as a result
of drug conduct and her relationship with Attorney Compton.
Deputy Sheriff Long described Attorney Compton as a "great
person" and "a very smart attorney."
¶13 The referee noted that Linda Albert, manager of the
Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program (WisLAP) worked with
Attorney Compton beginning on October 26, 2009, when he
initially volunteered for one year of monitoring following his
arrest. Attorney Compton subsequently volunteered for an
additional four years of monitoring. Ms. Albert testified that
Attorney Compton, without hesitation, has provided access to all
of his treatment providers, probation officers, and the OLR, and
that he has demonstrated honesty and integrity throughout the
monitoring process. Ms. Albert opined that Attorney Compton has
done an exemplary job of fulfilling his monitoring contract and
has excelled in consistently meeting the conditions set for him.
¶14 Ms. Albert testified Attorney Compton has a low risk
of relapsing given the extended period of time he has been free
of drugs and alcohol. Ms. Albert opined that Attorney Compton
is "no longer impaired by his disease and is fit to practice."
She recommended that Attorney Compton complete his contract for
five years of monitoring, which is scheduled to end on
October 1, 2014. Ms. Albert testified that after five years of
being alcohol and drug free, a person's relapse rate
7
No. 2010AP1118-D
statistically is approximately 14 percent, and she said that
rate does not significantly drop with longer abstinence.
¶15 Ms. Albert testified she could not think of a single
additional thing Attorney Compton could have done during his
monitoring to help with his rehabilitation, and she said he did
everything he was asked to do and there were no failures on his
part during his monitoring. While Ms. Albert does not believe
Attorney Compton requires monitoring beyond October 1, 2014, she
agrees that if he is reinstated, the public would be better
protected if his monitoring were to continue past that date.
¶16 The referee noted that Attorney Compton successfully
completed residential treatment at a hospital. He has
successfully passed all required random drug and alcohol tests,
completed all required contacts with his monitor, and completed
and documented all required community support groups and
outpatient treatment. The referee also noted that as of
December 18, 2012, Attorney Compton successfully met all
requirements to be discharged from probation which resulted from
his criminal convictions.
¶17 The referee noted that since the time of his arrest,
Attorney Compton lost his marriage, became estranged from his
children for a period of time, lost the trust and confidence of
the lawyers he used to work with, went through bankruptcy, and
lost substantial investments and assets. The referee noted that
several lawyers who testified at the hearing on the
reinstatement petition said they watched Attorney Compton lose
everything that was important to him and that he hit "the very
8
No. 2010AP1118-D
bottom." However, those lawyers also said they have watched
Attorney Compton slowly recover and reestablish strong
relationships with his children and his community. Those
lawyers believe Attorney Compton's journey through
rehabilitation has been remarkable and that he is again fit to
practice law.
¶18 Both Deputy Sergeant Patek and Deputy Sheriff Long
recognize Attorney Compton's successful rehabilitation to date,
but both men believe the period of Attorney Compton's suspension
has not been sufficient, given the seriousness of his criminal
conduct. Both believe that more time is needed before Attorney
Compton is reinstated to the practice of law.
¶19 While the referee said the seriousness of Attorney
Compton's conduct cannot be overstated, the referee concluded
that since his 2009 arrest, Attorney Compton has done everything
conceivable to turn his life around and begin the life-long
process of rehabilitation. The referee explained:
Compton has not undertaken the long and arduous
rehabilitation process for purposes of fooling the
system into giving back his license, but rather with
the determined goal of truthfully turning his life
around and again becoming a productive and meaningful
member of society. . . .
Compton willingly accepted all treatment,
suggestions[,] and monitoring. He has genuinely
impressed every individual he has worked with during
his years of monitoring and rehabilitation. . . .
My personal observations during the course of the
hearing concur with the observations of everybody who
has worked with Compton since 2009. Compton is a man
humbled by his great and numerous errors. For a
while, he lost everything that meant anything to him
9
No. 2010AP1118-D
in his life. I am quite satisfied that Compton is
most sincere in his efforts to rehabilitate himself.
I believe Compton recognizes that even if he never
practiced law again, he would make the same efforts
toward rehabilitation that he has made since 2009.
The record shows that Compton never tried to avoid,
evade[,] or blame others for his inappropriate
conduct. He does not lie about or cover up what he
did. His approach has been to "bare his soul," ask
for help, and do whatever it takes to turn his life
around.
I specifically asked Linda Albert of WisLAP whether
there was anything Compton failed to do or anything
more he could have done as part of his monitoring
program. Linda Albert was quick to reply that there
was nothing more the monitoring program could ask of
Compton that he has not already done. Simply put,
Compton's sincere efforts at rehabilitation have been
outstanding and above question.
¶20 In spite of Attorney Compton's remarkable efforts to
turn his life around, the referee did express some concern about
the possibility of relapse. Although Ms. Albert put the risk of
a relapse at approximately 14 percent for someone who has been
free of drugs and alcohol for five years, the referee said when
it comes to trusting a lawyer to serve the public and the legal
profession, a 14 percent relapse rate still needs to be
addressed. For that reason, the referee recommends that
Attorney Compton remain under close monitoring, similar to his
current WisLAP monitoring, for a minimum of two years from the
date of his reinstatement. The referee said extending the
monitoring deadline beyond the October 1, 2014 expiration of his
current WisLAP monitoring agreement will not only provide
further support for Attorney Compton, but will also allow a
quicker response to any relapse.
10
No. 2010AP1118-D
¶21 In response to the concerns of the two sheriff's
deputies that Attorney Compton's term of suspension has been
insufficient given his criminal convictions, the referee pointed
out that this court saw fit to suspend Attorney Compton's
license for a period of two years. The referee said during that
two-year period, Attorney Compton has done everything possible
to rehabilitate himself; he appears rehabilitated; and expert
testimony shows there is very little more that can be done for
him. The referee said to deny reinstatement on the basis that a
two-year suspension was not long enough would be second guessing
this court's choice of the appropriate period of suspension and
would also be ignoring Attorney Compton's nearly perfect record
at rehabilitation up to this time.
¶22 This court has carefully evaluated whether Attorney
Compton has indeed met the requirements for the reinstatement of
his license to practice law in Wisconsin, and we conclude that
he has. The behavior that led to his 2010 suspension was very
serious. However, Attorney Compton acknowledged the
wrongfulness of his conduct, voluntarily entered into a
rehabilitation program, and, according to everyone who testified
at the hearing on the reinstatement petition, he has in fact
turned his life around and is ready to resume the practice of
law. We agree with the referee that Attorney Compton has met
his burden of proof with respect to all elements needed to
justify his reinstatement. We stress that we expect the
exemplary behavior which Attorney Compton has exhibited during
11
No. 2010AP1118-D
the period of his suspension to continue once he resumes the
practice of law.
¶23 We share the referee's concern about making every
reasonable effort to ensure that Attorney Compton does not
relapse. For that reason we agree with the referee that
Attorney Compton should continue to participate in a monitoring
program for a period of two years from the date of his
reinstatement. We also agree with the referee that Attorney
Compton should pay the full costs of this proceeding.
¶24 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Stephen M. Compton
to practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated effective the date of
this order.
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of the
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin,
Stephen M. Compton shall continue to participate in a WisLAP
monitoring program and he shall comply with all conditions
imposed as part of that program for a period of two years from
the date of this order.
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Stephen M. Compton shall pay to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are
$4,373.03.
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the
terms of this order remains a condition of Stephen M. Compton's
license to practice law in Wisconsin.
12