Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Crystal L. Saltzwadel

2022 WI 48SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2022AP645-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Crystal L. Saltzwadel, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Crystal L. Saltzwadel,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SALTZWADEL
OPINION FILED: June 28, 2022
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
Per Curiam.
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2022 WI 48NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2022AP645-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Crystal L. Saltzwadel,
Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
FILED
Complainant, JUN 28, 2022
v. Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Supreme Court
Crystal L. Saltzwadel,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR)
and Attorney Crystal L. Saltzwadel have filed a stipulation
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 agreeing that
Attorney Saltzwadel's license to practice law in Wisconsin
should be suspended for 60 days for professional misconduct she
committed in connection with five client matters. After
reviewing the matter, we approve the stipulation, adopt the
stipulated facts and conclusions of law, and impose the
No. 2022AP645-D
stipulated discipline. Given the comprehensive stipulation,
which avoided the need to litigate this matter and to appoint a
referee, we impose no costs in connection with this proceeding.
¶2 Attorney Saltzwadel was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 2007. In February 2020, this court imposed a
public reprimand upon Attorney Saltzwadel for misconduct in six
client matters, including her failure to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness; failure to keep clients reasonably
informed about the status of their cases and respond to requests
for information; and failure to provide the OLR timely responses
to client grievances. Public Reprimand of Crystal L.
Saltzwadel, No. 2020-3 (electronic copy available at
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/
app/raw/003129.html).
¶3 On April 18, 2022, the OLR filed another complaint
against Attorney Saltzwadel alleging 11 counts of misconduct in
five client matters. The misconduct in this matter is similar
to the misconduct that gave rise to her 2020 public reprimand.
Attorney Saltzwadel failed to file a timely notice of intent to
pursue postconviction relief (NOI) on behalf of four clients and
failed to respond to inquiries from the four clients and others
on their behalf about the status of their cases. She also
failed to meaningfully engage with defense counsel in a separate
federal case who sought to shorten their mutual client's time of
incarceration and she failed to provide that client with a copy
of his revocation decision.
2
No. 2022AP645-D
¶4 The first two counts of misconduct relate to Attorney
Saltzwadel's representation of A.W. In 2019, the Office of the
State Public Defender (SPD) appointed Attorney Saltzwadel to
represent A.W. in a criminal case involving one misdemeanor and
two felonies. A.W. was found guilty of all charges and was
sentenced to three years of initial confinement followed by two
years of extended supervision. At his sentencing hearing, A.W.
and Attorney Saltzwadel signed a NOI, indicating that A.W.
intended to seek postconviction relief.
¶5 On March 5, 2020, Attorney Saltzwadel sent A.W. a
letter stating that she had filed the NOI on his behalf, her
representation of him had ended, and that the SPD would appoint
him an appellate attorney. A.W. did not receive Attorney
Saltzwadel's letter, possibly because he was moved among
different correctional facilities. However, A.W. and his family
repeatedly tried to contact Attorney Saltzwadel by telephone
regarding his appeal. They received no response from her.
¶6 Eventually, A.W. filed a grievance with the OLR. In
July 2020, the OLR informed Attorney Saltzwadel of the grievance
and that it appeared no NOI had been filed on A.W.'s behalf.
Attorney Saltzwadel told the OLR she had filed a NOI and a
motion for extension of time to file a NOI on A.W.'s behalf.
However, the copy of the document she provided to the OLR was
not file stamped by the court. Attorney Saltzwadel said she
believed she had timely filed the NOI. That day, Attorney
Saltzwadel sent a letter to A.W. informing him she would file
his NOI immediately. Again, A.W. did not receive Attorney
3
No. 2022AP645-D
Saltzwadel's letter; he was still moving among correctional
facilities.
¶7 On August 17, 2020, the SPD received a letter from
A.W. asking for appointment of appellate counsel for his
upcoming "appeal hearing filed by Attorney Crystal L.
Saltzwadel." On August 27, 2020, the SPD advised A.W. that no
NOI had yet been filed on A.W.'s behalf.
¶8 On October 2, 2020, the court of appeals received a
NOI together with an extension motion filed by Attorney
Saltzwadel on A.W.'s behalf. The court granted the motion and
retroactively extended the deadline, permitting A.W. to file his
NOI. However, Attorney Saltzwadel was unable to explain the
discrepancy between her assertion to the OLR that she had filed
the NOI on July 7, 2020, and the court's documented receipt of
the NOI some three months later.
¶9 The next count of misconduct pertains to Attorney
Saltzwadel's representation of S.H. On March 12, 2019, the SPD
appointed Attorney Saltzwadel to represent S.H. on two felonies.
In October 2019, S.H. was found guilty on both felonies, and she
was later sentenced to ten years of initial confinement followed
by five years of extended supervision. At sentencing, S.H. and
Attorney Saltzwadel signed a NOI, which indicated S.H.'s intent
to seek postconviction relief.
¶10 After sentencing, S.H. and her mother contacted
Attorney Saltzwadel to confirm that a NOI had been filed.
Attorney Saltzwadel claimed that a NOI had been filed and that
S.H. would hear from her appellate counsel within 60 days.
4
No. 2022AP645-D
¶11 In January 2020, S.H. learned the NOI had not been
filed. On January 10, 2020, Attorney Saltzwadel received an
email from a supervisor at the SPD who informed Attorney
Saltzwadel that S.H. and her family had been inquiring about
appellate counsel but it appeared no NOI had been filed. The
SPD urged Attorney Saltzwadel to file the NOI immediately.
Attorney Saltzwadel took no steps to file a NOI for S.H. after
receiving this email.
¶12 On January 28, 2020, Attorney Saltzwadel received a
follow-up email from the SPD. Shortly thereafter, another
attorney with the SPD filed the NOI, along with a motion to
extend the deadline for S.H. to file an appeal. Later that same
day, Attorney Saltzwadel emailed the SPD and claimed she did not
know what had happened to the NOI and that she had a printed
copy in her file. Attorney Saltzwadel also sent a letter to
S.H., stating that she had believed S.H.'s NOI was filed the day
of the sentencing hearing, but she had learned this was not the
case.1 Attorney Saltzwadel's letter further stated that the NOI
had now been filed, as well as a motion to extend the deadline
to file an appeal. On February 3, 2020, the court of appeals
retroactively extended the deadline, permitting S.H. to file a
NOI.
¶13 S.H. filed a grievance against Attorney Saltzwadel and
the OLR commenced an inquiry. Attorney Saltzwadel told the OLR
that when she returned to her office after S.H.'s sentencing
S.H. did not receive Attorney Saltzwadel's letter; it was
1
sent to the wrong address for inmate correspondence.
5
No. 2022AP645-D
hearing, she signed into the efiling system and uploaded the NOI
and that she was "unaware that the notice was never submitted."
¶14 The next allegations of misconduct pertain to Attorney
Saltzwadel's representation of S.J. On September 9, 2019, the
SPD appointed Attorney Saltzwadel to represent S.J. in three
ongoing criminal cases involving six felonies. In October 2019,
S.J. was convicted of five felonies. S.J. was sentenced to six
years of initial confinement and six years of extended
supervision. That same day, S.J. and Attorney Saltzwadel signed
a NOI for each of the three cases, reflecting S.J.'s intent to
seek postconviction relief.
¶15 On April 12, 2020, S.J. contacted the SPD's office
expressing concern because he had learned that Attorney
Saltzwadel had not filed the NOIs and he had received no
information about his appeal. S.J. told the SPD that he had
written to Attorney Saltzwadel but she had not responded.
¶16 The SPD emailed Attorney Saltzwadel on numerous
occasions about S.J. Attorney Saltzwadel told the OLR she
believed she had electronically filed the NOIs shortly after the
sentencing hearing, but had no explanation for why they were not
filed. She claimed that she would file all three NOIs and that
she would request extensions of time to file those documents.
¶17 On June 5, 2020, Attorney Saltzwadel belatedly filed
all three NOIs on S.J.'s behalf, but failed to request an
extension of the filing deadline. On July 22, 2020, another SPD
attorney filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on S.J.'s
behalf, alleging that Attorney Saltzwadel was ineffective for
6
No. 2022AP645-D
failing to timely file the NOIs on S.J.'s behalf, and thus
successfully obtained reinstatement of S.J.'s appellate rights.
¶18 The next client matter in this proceeding involves
Attorney Saltzwadel's representation of M.J. On November 13,
2019, M.J. was convicted of two felonies and one misdemeanor.
M.J.'s trial counsel withdrew shortly thereafter and Attorney
Saltzwadel was appointed by the SPD as successor counsel. After
sentencing, a NOI was prepared, indicating that M.J. intended to
seek postconviction relief.
¶19 In May 2021, M.J. contacted the SPD's office
expressing concern because he had learned his NOI had not been
filed. M.J. said he had attempted to contact Attorney
Saltzwadel personally and through third parties, using email and
voicemails, but she had not responded.
¶20 In June 2021, the SPD contacted Attorney Saltzwadel
and informed her that M.J.'s NOI had not been filed. Attorney
Saltzwadel said she would need to consult her file to see what
happened. In August 2021, after several more follow-up
inquiries from the SPD, Attorney Saltzwadel replied that she had
a NOI in her file and did not know why it was not filed with the
court. On September 3, 2021, Attorney Saltzwadel told the SPD
she would file the NOI. On September 16, 2021, Attorney
Saltzwadel finally filed a NOI on M.J.'s behalf.
¶21 On September 20, 2021, another attorney with the SPD
successfully filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on
M.J.'s behalf, alleging that Attorney Saltzwadel was ineffective
7
No. 2022AP645-D
for failing to timely file the NOI and thus successfully
obtained reinstatement of M.J.'s appellate rights.
¶22 Attorney Saltzwadel told the OLR that immediately
after the sentencing hearing, she told M.J.'s family that the
NOI had been filed and that M.J. did not have to continue the
appeal process if he didn't want to. Attorney Saltzwadel told
the OLR she was not aware that she had failed to successfully
file the NOI.
¶23 The final client matter at issue here involves T.S.Y.
As pertinent background, in 2011 T.S.Y. had been convicted of a
felony and sentenced to 30 months of initial confinement
followed by 48 months of extended supervision. In 2014, T.S.Y.
was convicted of another felony and sentenced to nine months of
confinement to run consecutive to his 2011 sentence. In January
2016, T.S.Y. was released from prison and his term of extended
supervision began.
¶24 In July 2019, while on extended supervision, T.S.Y.
was the subject of a traffic stop where he was found to have a
loaded firearm, drugs, drug paraphernalia, and a large amount of
cash. He had not reported for supervision in three years. The
SPD appointed Attorney Saltzwadel to represent T.S.Y. on
criminal charges stemming from the traffic stop and on the
revocation proceeding regarding his extended supervision.
¶25 In November 2019, T.S.Y. was indicted on three federal
criminal charges stemming from the July 2019 traffic stop.
Federal defense counsel was appointed to represent T.S.Y. in the
8
No. 2022AP645-D
federal criminal case. Pending state criminal charges were
dismissed on November 13, 2019.
¶26 On November 6, 2019, T.S.Y.'s revocation hearing was
held and, by order dated November 20, 2019, T.S.Y.'s extended
supervision was revoked and he was ordered to be confined for
three years and six days. Attorney Saltzwadel was emailed a
copy of the revocation decision that same day. T.S.Y. had until
December 5, 2019 to administratively appeal his revocation.
¶27 Five days after the revocation hearing, during an
email exchange with the federal defense attorney, Attorney
Saltzwadel told the federal defense attorney that she was still
awaiting T.S.Y.'s revocation decision.
¶28 On December 2, 2019, T.S.Y. made his initial
appearance in the federal case. The next day, his federal
defense attorney sent Attorney Saltzwadel an email asking that
she "try to pump the brakes on the revocation decision" because
the five year minimum sentence from the federal charge would run
consecutive to any sentence imposed in the revocation
proceeding. He explained that it was "pretty important to get
this [federal charge] addressed before the [state] revocation
decision is issued."
¶29 Minutes after receiving this email, Attorney
Saltzwadel responded, "Decision just came. Revoked for 2 years
9 months and 22 days. We can appeal but that rarely changes
anything. I will call the PO to see if there is anything else
we can do." However, because Attorney Saltzwadel did not
disclose that the revocation decision had actually issued on
9
No. 2022AP645-D
November 20, 2019, federal defense counsel did not know that
T.S.Y.'s administrative appeal deadline would expire on December
5, 2019; he believed there was still time to work something out
for T.S.Y.'s benefit.
¶30 On December 5, 2019, federal defense counsel told
T.S.Y. about his adverse revocation decision. T.S.Y. had not
known that his revocation decision had issued some two weeks
earlier. He had not received a copy of the decision from
Attorney Saltzwadel and had heard nothing from her after
November 13, 2019, despite having left voicemails for her.
¶31 On December 12, 2019, federal defense counsel sent
Attorney Saltzwadel the following email:
I left you a VM. Please get back to me on this. I've
discussed with the federal prosecutor the possibility
of having [T.S.Y.'s] revocation dropped if he resolves
this case. They are open to the idea. This would be
a favorable outcome, but seeing that the deadline on
the administrative appeal is next week Monday or
Tuesday, time is of the essence. Please provide me
with the name and contact info for [T.S.Y.'s] agent.
Attorney Saltzwadel never responded to this email. In late
2020, T.S.Y. entered into a plea agreement in which he was
convicted of one of the federal charges and the two other
charges were dismissed. He was sentenced to nine months in
prison to run concurrently with the revocation sentence in his
state criminal matter.
¶32 During the ensuing OLR investigation, Attorney
Saltzwadel told the OLR that she received a copy of the
revocation decision and promptly mailed a copy to T.S.Y. She
10
No. 2022AP645-D
told the OLR she did not recall receiving any voicemails from
T.S.Y. or his family.
¶33 Based on all of the foregoing, the OLR alleged and
Attorney Saltzwadel has stipulated that:
 By failing to timely submit notices of intent to pursue
postconviction relief on behalf of A.W., S.H., S.J., and
M.J., Attorney Saltzwadel violated SCR 20:1.32 (Counts One,
Three, Four, and Six).
 By failing to respond to inquiries from A.W., S.J., M.J.,
T.S.Y., and others on their behalf about the status of
their appeals, Attorney Saltzwadel violated SCR
20:1.4(a)(4)3 (Counts Two, Five, Seven, and Ten).
 By failing to meaningfully engage with federal defense
counsel for T.S.Y. in his attempts to shorten T.S.Y.'s time
of incarceration, Attorney Saltzwadel violated SCR 20:1.3
(Count Eight).
 By failing to timely provide T.S.Y. with a copy of his
revocation decision, Attorney Saltzwadel violated SCR
20:1.4(a)(3) (Count Nine).4
 By telling federal defense counsel on November 25, 2019
that she was still awaiting T.S.Y.'s revocation decision
2SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client."
3SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides: "A lawyer shall promptly comply
with reasonable requests by the client for information."
4SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides: "A lawyer shall keep the client
reasonably informed about the status of the matter."
11
No. 2022AP645-D
and by telling him on December 3, 2019 that the decision
"just came," Attorney Saltzwadel violated SCR 20:8.4(c)
(Count Eleven).5
¶34 On May 9, 2022, the OLR and Attorney Saltzwadel filed
a stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.12 in which Attorney Saltzwadel
stipulated to each of the eleven counts set forth in the OLR's
complaint. The OLR filed a memorandum in support of the
stipulation.
¶35 In the stipulation, Attorney Saltzwadel agrees that
the facts alleged in the OLR's complaint form a basis for the
requested discipline. She represents and verifies that she
fully understands the ramifications should this court impose the
stipulated level of discipline; that she fully understands her
right to contest this matter; that she fully understands her
right to consult with counsel; that her entry into the
stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily; and that her
entry into the stipulation represents her decision not to
contest the allegations in the complaint or the level and type
of discipline sought by the OLR's Director. The parties assert
that the stipulation was not the result of plea bargaining.
¶36 The parties ask this court to impose a 60-day
suspension on Attorney Saltzwadel's law license. The OLR's
memorandum in support of the stipulation cites to three cases in
support of the recommended 60-day suspension. In In re
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for
a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation."
12
No. 2022AP645-D
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Theobald, 2010 WI 102, 329
Wis. 2d 1, 786 N.W.2d 834, we imposed a 60-day suspension for
two counts of misconduct in one client matter, which included
failing to take a series of steps resulting in the dismissal of
the client's bankruptcy petition and failing to respond to the
client's inquiries regarding the status of the bankruptcy.
Attorney Theobald's disciplinary history included two prior
public reprimands for similar misconduct. In deeming this case
instructive, the OLR notes that Attorney Saltzwadel also has a
prior public reprimand and her misconduct is similar to that of
Attorney Theobald, as it involves failing to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness, failing to keep clients reasonably
informed about the status of their matters, and failing to
comply with reasonable request for information. See also In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moldenhauer, 2016 WI 43, 369
Wis. 2d 1, 879 N.W.2d 605 (imposing a 60-day suspension for two
counts of misconduct that included failing to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness, failing to keep clients
reasonably informed about the status of their matters, and
failing to comply with reasonable requests for information where
Attorney Moldenhauer had previously received a private reprimand
and two public reprimands for similar conduct).
¶37 The OLR also deems instructive In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Anderson, 2020 WI 82, 394 Wis. 2d 190, 950
N.W.2d 191. There, the attorney received a 60-day suspension
for six counts of misconduct in two client matters. His
misconduct involved failing to consult with a client about the
13
No. 2022AP645-D
means by which objectives were to be accomplished, failing to
act with reasonable diligence and promptness, failing to keep
clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters,
and failing to comply with reasonable requests for information.
Attorney Anderson had previously received a private reprimand,
two public reprimands, and a 60-day suspension. The OLR argues
that the Anderson case is similar to Attorney Saltzwadel's as it
involves failing to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness, failing to keep clients reasonably informed about
the status of their matters, and failing to comply with
reasonable requests for information.
¶38 We have some concerns that a 60-day license suspension
is inadequate for the misconduct Attorney Saltzwadel committed
in this manner, which involves five clients and 11 counts of
misconduct, including a violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) for making
misrepresentations to another attorney representing their mutual
client. However, we acknowledge that the OLR has advised us
that Attorney Saltzwadel has fully admitted responsibility for
her misconduct, and convincingly espoused her understanding of
the need to avoid repeating it. The OLR asserts that a
suspension of more than 60 days is not merited here. Therefore,
although the cases cited by the OLR are not precisely on point
because of factual differences and generally less serious
misconduct, we are persuaded that a 60-day suspension of
Attorney Saltzwadel's license to practice law in Wisconsin is an
appropriate level of discipline for this case.
14
No. 2022AP645-D
¶39 Henceforth, we expect Attorney Saltzwadel to
demonstrate that she has a proper understanding of and attitude
toward the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar in
this state and that she will act in conformity with those
standards. Attorney Saltzwadel is reminded that this court may
impose progressively severe sanctions when an attorney engages
in repeated misconduct. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Netzer, 2014 WI 7, ¶49, 352 Wis. 2d 310, 841
N.W.2d 820 ("[t]his court has long adhered to the concept of
progressive discipline in attorney regulatory cases.") We
accept the stipulation and impose a 60-day suspension of
Attorney Saltzwadel's license to practice law in Wisconsin.
¶40 We turn to the issue of costs. The OLR's complaint
requested the court impose the costs of the proceeding.
However, because this matter has been resolved by means of a
stipulation without the appointment of a referee, we do not
impose costs upon Attorney Saltzwadel. The OLR does not seek
restitution and no restitution is ordered.
¶41 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Crystal L.
Saltzwadel to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for 60-
days, effective August 9, 2022.
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Crystal L. Saltzwadel 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.
15
No. 2022AP645-D
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See
SCR 22.28(2).
16
No. 2022AP645-D
1