2021 WI 3
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2018AP540-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Beth M. Bant, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant- Respondent, v. Beth M. Bant, Respondent- Appellant
ATTORNEY BANT REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS Reported at 389 Wis. 2d 446,936 N.W.2d 152 PDC No:2019 WI 107 - Published
OPINION FILED: January 26, 2021 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE:
JUSTICES: Per Curiam. NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS: 2021 WI 3 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2018AP540-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Beth M. Bant, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED Complainant-Respondent, JAN 26, 2021 v. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court Beth M. Bant,
Respondent-Appellant.
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed by Referee David A. Piehler recommending that the court reinstate the
license of Beth M. Bant to practice law in Wisconsin. No appeal
has been filed from the referee's report and recommendation.
Accordingly, our review proceeds pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
(SCR) 22.33(3). Upon careful review of the matter, we adopt the
referee's findings and conclusions and agree that Attorney
Bant's petition for reinstatement should be granted. We also
agree with the referee that the costs of the reinstatement No. 2018AP540-D
proceeding, which are $4,149.29 as of November 24, 2020, should
be paid by Attorney Bant.
¶2 Attorney Bant was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 2013. Her license to practice law in Wisconsin was
suspended for six months, effective January 29, 2020, as a
result of two counts of misconduct arising out of her work as an
in-house lawyer for a Wisconsin insurance company. Attorney
Bant made false statements and submitted falsified documents to
her employer to obtain reimbursement for expenses she allegedly
incurred in attending a conference that in fact she did not
attend. She provided falsified documents to her employer when
questioned about the request for expense reimbursements. See In
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bant, 2019 WI 107, 389
Wis. 2d 446, 936 N.W.2d 152.
¶3 Attorney Bant filed a petition seeking the
reinstatement of her Wisconsin law license on June 16, 2020.
She filed an affidavit in support of her petition. The Office
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a response on August 20, 2020 stating that its investigation did not reveal facts that would
demonstrate Attorney Bant could not meet her burden of proof for
reinstatement.
¶4 A hearing was held before the referee on October 6,
2020, in Phillips, Wisconsin. The only witness at the hearing
was Attorney Bant.
¶5 On November 3, 2020, the referee issued a report
concluding that Attorney Bant had satisfied her burden of proof
2 No. 2018AP540-D
and had met the requirements for reinstatement set forth in
SCR 22.31.
¶6 The referee found that Attorney Bant fully complied
with the terms of the order of suspension; she has paid the
costs of the prior proceeding; and she has made restitution of
the payments she fraudulent obtained. The referee notes that
during her suspension, Attorney Bant has done volunteer work
with 4-H and at community-based residential facilities (CBRF).
She has sewn COVID masks for a CBRF. She was hired to work on
the U.S. census.
¶7 The referee said Attorney Bant credibly testified at
the hearing about the impact that her suspension and related
proceedings have had on her life and her resolve not to repeat
that. Attorney Bant stated she underwent a six-month period of
introspection after being fired from her job during which she
examined her career choice. She ultimately decided to pursue
the practice of law in a small town, providing needed legal
services to a rural area, which areas are traditionally underserved. Attorney Bant testified at the hearing that her
suspension and its surrounding circumstances have given her a
deeper understanding of the Attorney's Oath and the standards
imposed on members of the bar, and she has committed to holding
herself to a high standard of practice.
¶8 The referee noted that Attorney Bant provided written
recommendations from eight individuals who recommend her
reinstatement and who opined that her return to the practice of law will be beneficial to her clients and the community. 3 No. 2018AP540-D
Attorney Bant indicated that she plans to manage her practice to
avoid pressures that might lead to ethical lapses by not
practicing in a corporate environment, by carefully screening
clients, and by declining to represent clients who would ask her
to act in an unethical fashion. She has undergone training in
managing her trust account, and has had her staff take such
training also. She reconciles her trust account more frequently
than required by the supreme court rules. Her practice includes
rendering detailed closing statements for real estate
transactions to show how funds pass through her trust account.
She limits handling of funds for elderly clients involved in
Medicaid planning, instead having her clients handle
transactions themselves. Attorney Dale Onchuck will be
available to Attorney Bant as a resource if she is allowed to
resume the practice of law.
¶9 The referee found that Attorney Bant's behavior during
the period of her suspension has been exemplary. He found that
Attorney Bant has met her burden to show that she is of good moral character. The referee went on to say:
The remaining questions, remedying the causes of the misbehavior, protecting the administration of justice and the public interest, and the ability of the Petitioner to be safely recommended to the legal profession, the courts and the public as fit to be consulted by and to represent others in matters of trust and confidence, and to aid in the administration of justice, are interrelated. I don't believe we will ever be able to understand or explain the misbehavior that led to the court's discipline. It was not rational, particularly considering the significant financial and emotional cost for Ms. Bant compared to the amount involved in the misconduct. While the cost
4 No. 2018AP540-D
to Ms. Bant was only learned after the fact, she testified credibly that the process of discipline and her suspension have impressed upon her the need to scrupulously adhere to the rules of professional responsibility. Ms. Bant became visibly emotional twice during the hearing while describing the effect the discipline has had on her and her family. I find those displays of emotion were genuine, and demonstrate remorse, . . .. She also credibly testified about her commitment to avoid further misconduct. She testified that she would hold herself to a high standard in the future. . . .
Ms. Bant wishes to resume her practice of law in Phillips, involving in large measure dealing with the elderly, a vulnerable population. She also plans to handle real estate transactions, which involve handling large sums of money. ¶10 The referee noted that Attorney Bant has indicated
that Attorney Onchuck will be available to consult with her.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2021 WI 3
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2018AP540-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Beth M. Bant, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant- Respondent, v. Beth M. Bant, Respondent- Appellant
ATTORNEY BANT REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS Reported at 389 Wis. 2d 446,936 N.W.2d 152 PDC No:2019 WI 107 - Published
OPINION FILED: January 26, 2021 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE:
JUSTICES: Per Curiam. NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS: 2021 WI 3 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2018AP540-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Beth M. Bant, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED Complainant-Respondent, JAN 26, 2021 v. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court Beth M. Bant,
Respondent-Appellant.
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed by Referee David A. Piehler recommending that the court reinstate the
license of Beth M. Bant to practice law in Wisconsin. No appeal
has been filed from the referee's report and recommendation.
Accordingly, our review proceeds pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
(SCR) 22.33(3). Upon careful review of the matter, we adopt the
referee's findings and conclusions and agree that Attorney
Bant's petition for reinstatement should be granted. We also
agree with the referee that the costs of the reinstatement No. 2018AP540-D
proceeding, which are $4,149.29 as of November 24, 2020, should
be paid by Attorney Bant.
¶2 Attorney Bant was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 2013. Her license to practice law in Wisconsin was
suspended for six months, effective January 29, 2020, as a
result of two counts of misconduct arising out of her work as an
in-house lawyer for a Wisconsin insurance company. Attorney
Bant made false statements and submitted falsified documents to
her employer to obtain reimbursement for expenses she allegedly
incurred in attending a conference that in fact she did not
attend. She provided falsified documents to her employer when
questioned about the request for expense reimbursements. See In
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bant, 2019 WI 107, 389
Wis. 2d 446, 936 N.W.2d 152.
¶3 Attorney Bant filed a petition seeking the
reinstatement of her Wisconsin law license on June 16, 2020.
She filed an affidavit in support of her petition. The Office
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a response on August 20, 2020 stating that its investigation did not reveal facts that would
demonstrate Attorney Bant could not meet her burden of proof for
reinstatement.
¶4 A hearing was held before the referee on October 6,
2020, in Phillips, Wisconsin. The only witness at the hearing
was Attorney Bant.
¶5 On November 3, 2020, the referee issued a report
concluding that Attorney Bant had satisfied her burden of proof
2 No. 2018AP540-D
and had met the requirements for reinstatement set forth in
SCR 22.31.
¶6 The referee found that Attorney Bant fully complied
with the terms of the order of suspension; she has paid the
costs of the prior proceeding; and she has made restitution of
the payments she fraudulent obtained. The referee notes that
during her suspension, Attorney Bant has done volunteer work
with 4-H and at community-based residential facilities (CBRF).
She has sewn COVID masks for a CBRF. She was hired to work on
the U.S. census.
¶7 The referee said Attorney Bant credibly testified at
the hearing about the impact that her suspension and related
proceedings have had on her life and her resolve not to repeat
that. Attorney Bant stated she underwent a six-month period of
introspection after being fired from her job during which she
examined her career choice. She ultimately decided to pursue
the practice of law in a small town, providing needed legal
services to a rural area, which areas are traditionally underserved. Attorney Bant testified at the hearing that her
suspension and its surrounding circumstances have given her a
deeper understanding of the Attorney's Oath and the standards
imposed on members of the bar, and she has committed to holding
herself to a high standard of practice.
¶8 The referee noted that Attorney Bant provided written
recommendations from eight individuals who recommend her
reinstatement and who opined that her return to the practice of law will be beneficial to her clients and the community. 3 No. 2018AP540-D
Attorney Bant indicated that she plans to manage her practice to
avoid pressures that might lead to ethical lapses by not
practicing in a corporate environment, by carefully screening
clients, and by declining to represent clients who would ask her
to act in an unethical fashion. She has undergone training in
managing her trust account, and has had her staff take such
training also. She reconciles her trust account more frequently
than required by the supreme court rules. Her practice includes
rendering detailed closing statements for real estate
transactions to show how funds pass through her trust account.
She limits handling of funds for elderly clients involved in
Medicaid planning, instead having her clients handle
transactions themselves. Attorney Dale Onchuck will be
available to Attorney Bant as a resource if she is allowed to
resume the practice of law.
¶9 The referee found that Attorney Bant's behavior during
the period of her suspension has been exemplary. He found that
Attorney Bant has met her burden to show that she is of good moral character. The referee went on to say:
The remaining questions, remedying the causes of the misbehavior, protecting the administration of justice and the public interest, and the ability of the Petitioner to be safely recommended to the legal profession, the courts and the public as fit to be consulted by and to represent others in matters of trust and confidence, and to aid in the administration of justice, are interrelated. I don't believe we will ever be able to understand or explain the misbehavior that led to the court's discipline. It was not rational, particularly considering the significant financial and emotional cost for Ms. Bant compared to the amount involved in the misconduct. While the cost
4 No. 2018AP540-D
to Ms. Bant was only learned after the fact, she testified credibly that the process of discipline and her suspension have impressed upon her the need to scrupulously adhere to the rules of professional responsibility. Ms. Bant became visibly emotional twice during the hearing while describing the effect the discipline has had on her and her family. I find those displays of emotion were genuine, and demonstrate remorse, . . .. She also credibly testified about her commitment to avoid further misconduct. She testified that she would hold herself to a high standard in the future. . . .
Ms. Bant wishes to resume her practice of law in Phillips, involving in large measure dealing with the elderly, a vulnerable population. She also plans to handle real estate transactions, which involve handling large sums of money. ¶10 The referee noted that Attorney Bant has indicated
that Attorney Onchuck will be available to consult with her.
The referee said that Attorney Onchuck has had an opportunity to
observe how Attorney Bant interacts with clients after her
misconduct but prior to her suspension, and the referee found
Attorney Onchuck's comments helpful and persuasive. The referee
noted that the State Bar of Wisconsin has publicized the need
for attorneys in rural areas, and transactional and elder law
attorneys are said to be a particular need. The referee
concluded,
With her added ethical education through her numerous [continuing legal education] credits, with her stated commitment to adhere to the highest standards of practice, and with the safeguards and policies she plans to institute should her license to practice law be reinstated, I believe Ms. Bant can safely be recommended to the courts and the public as fit to practice law as she intends.
5 No. 2018AP540-D
¶11 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.
¶12 Supreme Court Rule 22.29(4) provides that a petition
for reinstatement must show all 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.
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the requirements set forth in SCR 22.26.
6 No. 2018AP540-D
(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. ¶13 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1)(c) provides that an
attorney seeking reinstatement has the burden of demonstrating
all of the above requirements by clear, satisfactory, and
convincing evidence. Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) also provides
that an attorney seeking reinstatement must 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 to the public interest;
and that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of
the underlying disciplinary order. See SCR 22.31(1)(a), (b),
and (d).
¶14 Upon review of the record, we agree that Attorney Bant
has established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence
that she has satisfied all the criteria necessary for
reinstatement. Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of
fact and conclusions of law and we accept the referee's
recommendation to reinstate Attorney Bant's license to practice
law in Wisconsin. As is our usual custom, we also find it
appropriate to assess the full costs of the proceeding, which
are $4,149.29 against Attorney Bant.
7 No. 2018AP540-D
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Beth M. Bant to
practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date of
this order.
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Beth M. Bant shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $4,149.29 as
of November 24, 2020.
8 No. 2018AP540-D