Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ann T. Bowe

2020 WI 87, 950 N.W.2d 808, 394 Wis. 2d 537

• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Decided: November 24, 2020
• Docket: 2020AP000131-D
• Status: Published

Opinion

2020 WI 87

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2020AP131-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ann T. Bowe, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Ann T. Bowe, Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BOWE

OPINION FILED: November 24, 2020 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE:

JUSTICES: Per Curiam. NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS: 2020 WI 87 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2020AP131-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ann T. Bowe, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED Complainant, NOV 24, 2020 v. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court Ann T. Bowe,

Respondent.

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly

reprimanded.

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report of Referee Robert

E. Kinney which concluded that Attorney Ann T. Bowe's

professional misconduct warrants a public reprimand. The

referee further recommends that the full costs of this

proceeding, which are $6,482.86 as of September 1, 2020, be

assessed against Attorney Bowe.

¶2 No appeal has been filed from the referee's report and

recommendation, so we review the matter pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2). Upon consideration of the referee's No. 2020AP131-D

report, the parties' stipulation, and the record in this matter,

we agree that a public reprimand is an appropriate sanction for

Attorney Bowe's misconduct. We also require her to pay the full

costs of this proceeding.

¶3 Attorney Bowe was admitted to practice law in

Wisconsin in 1980 and practices in Milwaukee. In 1993 she was

the subject of a consensual private reprimand. The misconduct

at issue in that case involved neglecting two matters for the

same client; failing to keep the client reasonably informed; and

making a misrepresentation to the Board of Attorneys

Professional Responsibility. Private Reprimand No. 1993-24

(electronic copy available at https://compendium.wicourts.

gov/app/raw/000110.html). In 2011, Attorney Bowe was publicly

reprimanded for misconduct consisting of failing to act with

reasonable diligence and promptness; failing to advise the court

of a jurisdictional defect; filing a certificate of compliance

with statutory requirements which contained false information;

having ex parte communications with the court; and making a false statement to a tribunal. In re Disciplinary Proceedings

Against Bowe, 2011 WI 48, 334 Wis. 2d 360, 800 N.W.2d 367.

¶4 On January 22, 2020, the Office of Lawyer Regulation

(OLR) filed a complaint alleging two counts of misconduct.

Attorney Bowe filed an answer on February 25, 2020. On July 2,

2020, the OLR filed an amended complaint which also alleged two

counts of misconduct. On July 3, 2020, the OLR and Attorney

Bowe filed a stipulation whereby she agreed that the facts alleged in the amended complaint formed a basis for the 2 No. 2020AP131-D

imposition of a public reprimand. The following facts are taken

from the stipulation and the amended complaint.

¶5 On December 6, 2016, L.W., Jr. was charged with hiding

a corpse in a Dodge County case. The charge arose from the

death of S.D., L.W.'s girlfriend and his first cousin. S.D.'s

body was found in L.W.'s vehicle, which was parked in the garage

of a house owned by L.W. in which M.J., L.W.'s biological

mother, resided.

¶6 On December 6, 2016, M.J. was charged with harboring

or aiding a felon which was related to L.W.'s case.

¶7 On December 8, 2016, the circuit court in L.W.'s

criminal case ordered conditions of his bond that included him

having no direct contact with M.J. or the immediate family of

the victim. In addition, L.W. was to have no third-party

contact with those persons except through an attorney or

investigator.

¶8 On December 14, 2016, S.J., S.D.'s biological father,

filed a wrongful death action against L.W. S.J. and M.J. are biological siblings.

¶9 At the preliminary hearing in L.W.'s criminal case,

held on December 22, 2016, the court found probable cause and

bound L.W. over for trial. An arraignment was scheduled for

February 15, 2017.

¶10 On January 20, 2017, the Dodge County District

Attorney filed an Information in the L.W. case charging first-

degree intentional homicide-domestic abuse modifier; hiding a

3 No. 2020AP131-D

corpse; incest; and two counts of possession of a firearm by a

felon.

¶11 On February 14, 2017, Attorney Jason Richard on behalf

of S.J. and the estate of S.D., filed a motion for a temporary

restraining order in the wrongful death action restraining L.W.

and/or his agents from transferring or dissipating any of L.W.'s

assets, real or personal.

¶12 The arraignment in L.W.'s criminal case was

rescheduled several times and ultimately was set for June 8,

2017.

¶13 On February 17, 2017, in the wrongful death action,

the circuit court granted the temporary injunction restraining

L.W. and/or his agents from transferring or dissipating assets

for 90 days, with the exception of allowing the expenditure of

up to $150,000 for legal fees. The circuit court issued its

findings of fact and conclusions of law on February 24, 2017.

That meant the temporary injunction would expire on or about May

25, 2017. Attorney Richard did not request a hearing to renew the temporary restraining order when it expired.

¶14 On May 26, 2017, Attorney Bowe met with L.W. at the

Dodge County jail, at which time L.W. and Attorney Bowe signed a

representation agreement. Attorneys Donna Kuchler and Aaron

Nelson had been representing L.W. in his criminal case up to

that point.

¶15 On May 29, 2017, L.W. sent a letter to Attorney Bowe

in which he stated that the statements by witnesses with respect to the gun possession charges were "highly inconsistent" and 4 No. 2020AP131-D

that DNA evidence on the guns was "inconclusive." L.W. said the

charge of hiding a corpse was vague and there was "no prelim or

showing proof of any probably cause to restrain his liberty."

L.W. also wrote there was "no standing for a tenant or guest to

override sole owner's consent or challenge of a search" which

referred to M.J. and M.V., who were living at the house owned by

L.W., where M.J. resided and where the corpse was found. L.W.

concluded the letter by saying that "A good position we are in

Ann is I am a Pre-trial detainee held in violation of U.S.

Constitution. Pre-arraigned at that!"

¶16 On May 31, 2017, Attorney Bowe deposited $149,397.81

into her trust account. These were funds belonging to L.W.,

which were obtained from Attorney Kuchler.

¶17 On June 2, 2017, Attorney Bowe met with L.W. at the

Dodge County jail. During that meeting L.W. signed a motion for

substitution of counsel, which substituted Attorney Bowe and

Attorney Michael Steinle for Attorneys Kuchler and Nelson.

¶18 On June 3, 2017, at L.W.'s request, Attorney Bowe wrote the following trust account checks from L.W.'s funds:

M.J. (L.W.'s mother) $ 3,000.00 M.J. (L.W.'s grandmother) $ 1,000.00 D.M. (L.W.'s cousin) $ 1,197.81 D.P. (D.M.'s daughter) $ 200.00 S.J. (S.D.'s father) $10,000.00 T.J. (S.D.'s mother) $ 7,500.00 G.C. (L.W.'s friend) $ 2,500.00 ¶19 At the time Attorney Bowe wrote the checks, she knew

that S.J. and T.J. were S.D.'s parents. S.J. and T.J. were potential State witnesses. Attorney Bowe also knew that M.J.

5 No. 2020AP131-D

was a co-defendant in a criminal case and was a potential

witness against L.W. in his criminal case.

¶20 On June 3, 2017, L.W. telephoned D.M. to ask him to

pick up checks from Attorney Bowe's law office. D.M. was out of

state at the time and instructed his daughter, D.P., to go to

Attorney Bowe's law office to retrieve the checks. D.P. went to

Attorney Bowe's law office that day and Attorney Bowe gave her

checks made out to D.P., D.M., S.J., and T.J. D.P. left the

check for T.J. at D.M.'s house and he subsequently gave that

check to T.J.

¶21 On June 3, 2017, L.W. also telephoned G.C. to ask her

to pick up checks from Attorney Bowe's law office. G.C. went to

Attorney Bowe's law office that day and Attorney Bowe gave her

checks made out to G.C., M.J., and M.J. (L.W.'s grandmother).

¶22 On June 8, 2017, a motion hearing was held in L.W.'s

criminal case, at which time the circuit court dismissed

Attorneys Kuchler and Nelson and allowed Attorneys Bowe and

Steinle to serve as L.W.'s co-counsel. The arraignment was rescheduled for July 20, 2017.

¶23 On June 8, 2017, L.W. signed Attorneys Bowe's and

Steinle's fee agreement. L.W. agreed to pay a flat fee of

$100,000 for representation in the criminal case. Attorney Bowe

wrote a trust account check in the amount of $50,000, dated

June 2, 2017, payable to Attorney Steinle for his half of the

flat fee.

¶24 On or about June 13, 2017, T.J. notified the Dodge County District Attorney's Office that she had received a check 6 No. 2020AP131-D

for $7,500 from Attorney Bowe's law office and that S.J. had

received a similar check for $10,000.

¶25 On June 27, 2017, Attorneys Bowe and Steinle met with

L.W. at the Dodge County jail.

¶26 On July 10, 2017, Attorney Steinle filed a motion to

withdraw from representing L.W., citing a breakdown in

communication.

¶27 On July 14, 2017, the district attorney filed an

"other acts" motion and a motion to disqualify Attorney Bowe in

L.W.'s criminal case based on a conflict of interest likely to

result in ineffective assistance of counsel. The "other acts"

motion identified S.J., T.J., and M.J. as State witnesses. In

the motion, the district attorney argued:

The transfer of large amounts of money to State witnesses is designed to influence their testimony and their cooperation with the State in its prosecution. It is most telling that the mother and father of the victim are in receipt of the largest sums of money. The next largest documented amount is to his mother who is a witness to the events surrounding the homicide. All three are witnesses against him. ¶28 On July 17, 2017, Attorney Steinle was allowed to

withdraw from representing L.W.

¶29 On July 13, 2017, Attorney Bowe wrote a trust account

check payable to cash for $250. L.W. had instructed Attorney

Bowe to deposit this amount into the account of an incarcerated

female friend. On July 17, 2017, Attorney Bowe wrote a trust

account check payable to cash for $5,000. On August 4, 2017, she wrote a trust account check payable to cash for $2,500. The

7 No. 2020AP131-D

checks totaled $7,500, which is the fee amount L.W. and Attorney

Bowe agreed that Attorney Bowe had earned out of the $50,000

¶30 On July 20, 2017, a motion hearing in L.W.'s criminal

case was held, at which time Attorney Bowe was provided copies

of the "other acts" motion and motion to disqualify her.

Attorney Bowe agreed to withdraw from L.W.'s case, and the

circuit court allowed her to do.

¶31 In the stipulation, Attorney Bowe agreed that her

conduct in writing checks on behalf of L.W. to potential state

witnesses carried a significant risk that her representation of

L.W. would be materially limited by her personal interests.

¶32 By entering into the stipulation, Attorney Bowe

admitted the following counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's

amended complaint:

Count 1: By issuing checks from her trust account to potential State witnesses against her client, Attorney Bowe violated SCR 20:1.7(a)(2).1

Count 2: By making three trust account checks payable to cash, Attorney Bowe violated SCR 20:1.15(f)(2)a.2

1 SCR 20:1.7(a)(2) provides:

(a) Except as provided in par. (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

8 No. 2020AP131-D

¶33 The parties state that the stipulation did not result

from plea bargaining. Attorney Bowe represents that she fully

understands the allegations; that she fully understands the

ramifications should this court impose the stipulated level of

discipline; that she fully understands her right to contest the

matter; that that she fully understands her right to consult

with counsel and that she has consulted with counsel; that her

entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily;

that she has read the amended complaint and the stipulation and

her entry into the stipulation represents her decision not to

contest the allegations in the amended complaint or the level

and type of discipline sought by the OLR's director.

¶34 The referee agreed that by issuing checks from her

trust account to potential State witnesses in L.W.'s criminal

case, Attorney Bowe engaged in conduct that created a

significant risk that her representation of L.W. would be

materially limited by her personal interest. The referee

commented that at a July 14, 2020 hearing, Attorney Bowe explained the reason for writing the checks. Attorney Bowe said

L.W. had settled a large personal injury case and had a large

amount of money at his disposal. She said at the time the

criminal charges were filed, there were various actions seeking

to freeze or seize those funds. She said at the time L.W.

2 SCR 20:1.15(f)(2)a. provides: "No withdrawal of cash shall me made from a trust account or from a deposit to a trust account. No check shall be made payable to "Cash." No withdrawal shall be made from a trust account by automated teller or cash dispensing machine."

9 No. 2020AP131-D

retained her in the criminal case none of those actions had been

successful, but L.W. feared that he would soon not have access

to that money and while he still had it he wanted to make gifts

to a number of people, using her to disburse the funds. The

referee commented, "one need not dwell on the possible

hypothetical problems that this could have created; the details

of this case are living proof that this was a bad idea." The

referee said to Attorney Bowe's credit, she realized she could

not defend against the district attorney's motion to remove her

from the case and she immediately stepped aside. The referee

noted that Attorney Bowe's counsel commented that Attorney Bowe,

"perceived as a necessity the appeasing of a difficult client,

as [L.W.] most certainly was."

¶35 The referee concluded that a public reprimand was an

appropriate sanction for Attorney Bowe's misconduct.

¶36 This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact

unless they are found to be clearly erroneous, but we review the

referee's conclusions of law de novo. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71,

740 N.W.2d 125. We determine the appropriate level of

discipline independent of the referee's recommendation, but

benefitting from it. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against

Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.

¶37 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings

of fact, which are largely derived from the parties'

stipulation, are clearly erroneous, so we adopt them. We also

10 No. 2020AP131-D

adopt the referee's conclusions of law with respect to the

alleged misconduct.

¶38 With respect to the sanction, we agree that a public

reprimand is an appropriate sanction. While no two cases are

preciously identical, we find that Public Reprimand of Kristin

Schrank, No. 2018-08 (electronic copy available at

https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/003045.html) is somewhat

analogous. Attorney Schrank was an assistant district attorney.

Her responsibilities included answering questions and assisting

law enforcement during non-business hours. While working at a

different part-time job, Attorney Schrank asked a friend, who

was a former assistant district attorney but who was not

authorized to answer the duty district attorney phone at that

time, to respond to any calls from law enforcement.

¶39 During that time, officers from a police department

attempted to contact Attorney Schrank about an arrestee's

refusal to consent to a blood draw following an operating while

intoxicated arrest with injuries. Attorney Schrank's friend answered the call and advised the officer to obtain a search

warrant. The friend represented himself as an intern at the

district attorney's office and gave the name of an intern.

Attorney Schrank subsequently appeared in court on the matter

and dismissed the case without providing any reason. Following

an investigation into her conduct, Attorney Schrank was

convicted of misdemeanor attempted misconduct in public office.

Her personal interest presented a conflict of interest. Like Attorney Schrank, Attorney Bowe made poor decisions in writing 11 No. 2020AP131-D

checks to potential witnesses in L.W.'s case, which ultimately

created a conflict of interest that impacted the administration

of justice. A public reprimand is warranted.

¶40 IT IS ORDERED that Ann T. Bowe is publicly reprimanded

for her professional misconduct.

¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date

of this order, Ann T. Bowe shall pay to the Office of Lawyer

Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which total $6,482.86

as of September 1, 2020.

12 No. 2020AP131-D