[267]*267PER CURIAM.
¶ 1. We review the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of Referee [268]*268Cheryl Rosen Weston for sanctions, pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1 Attorney Steve J. Polich was found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct in the course of his practice of law in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The referee recommended a public reprimand and payment of an unspecified proration of the costs.
¶ 2. We approve the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and determine that Attorney Polich's misconduct warrants a public reprimand. However, we disagree with the recommendation for a pro-ration of costs and conclude that Attorney Polich should pay the entire amount.
¶ 3. Attorney Polich was licensed to practice law in Wisconsin in 1982. He has had prior administrative suspensions in 1991 and 1993, both followed by reinstatement, for noncompliance with Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements.
¶ 4. This court adopts the referee's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Charlton, 174 Wis. 2d 844, 498 N.W.2d 380 (1993). No deference is granted to the referee's conclusions of law and they are reviewed de novo. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Norlin, 104 Wis. 2d 117, 310 N.W.2d 789 (1981). The court may impose whatever sanction it deems appropriate regardless of the referee's recommendation. In re Disciplinary Pro[269]*269ceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.
¶ 5. This case involves seven counts of alleged misconduct. Count one alleges a violation of SCR 20:1.32 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client). Counts two and three allege violations of SCR 20:3.33 (knowingly making a false statement of fact to a tribunal). Count four alleges a violation of SCR 20:7.5(a)4 [270]*270and SCR 20:7.1(a)5 (making a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services). Count five alleges a violation of SCR 31.10(1)6 and SCR [271]*27120:8.47 (engaging in the practice of law while State Bar membership is suspended for a CLE violation). Counts six and seven allege violations of SCR 22.03(6)8 (willfully failing to provide relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents, or to misrepresent a disclosure, all during the course of an Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) investigation).
[272]*272¶ 6. After several notices to report CLE compliance went unanswered, the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) sent Attorney Polich a notice of noncompliance via certified mail on April 7,1997. This informed him he would be automatically suspended from the State Bar unless BBE received his completed compliance forms by June 3, 1997. Attorney Polich apparently had earned the necessary credits but had simply failed to report them. However, he never complied and on June 4,1997, BBE sent him a notice of suspension via certified mail effective on that day. To date, Attorney Polich has never complied with the requirements for reinstatement.
¶ 7. Someone from Attorney Polich's office apparently knew that he was suspended because on March 22,1999, one of his employees contacted BBE to inquire about the reinstatement process. That prompted another letter from BBE to Attorney Polich the next day reiterating that he had been suspended.
¶ 8. Despite being suspended, Attorney Polich appeared in Wisconsin courts in ten cases between 1998 and 2001. One of these involved representation of a defendant in a Forest County Circuit Court civil action and forms the basis for counts one and seven.
¶ 9. The defendant was served with the summons and complaint on June 15,1998. Attorney Polich maintains that he had an oral agreement with the plaintiffs' original counsel that an answer did not have to be filed until some unspecified date in the future. However, Attorney Polich and his client had a parting of ways, apparently as the result of losing a temporary injunction proceeding on July 16. Attorney Polich claims he told his client to get new counsel but admits he never received confirmation that she indeed had done so until early September. Attorney Polich did not formally withdraw until September 10.
[273]*273¶ 10. In the meantime, contrary to his alleged understanding with plaintiffs' counsel, who had now been succeeded by new counsel with whom Attorney Polich had no understanding, the answer was actually due on July 30. Attorney Polich did not meet that deadline but claimed that within a few days thereafter it became apparent to him that the substitution of counsel had not formally occurred and he needed to file the answer, which he did on August 10.
¶ 11. This untimely answer was later struck and default judgment was taken against Attorney Polich's former client which she unsuccessfully tried to vacate. Attorney Polich gave the client and her new attorney an affidavit to support the effort to vacate the default judgment in which he asserted he was a Wisconsin licensed attorney. The client later sued Attorney Polich for malpractice and he paid $50,000 to settle. It was during the course of this malpractice action in 2001 that Attorney Polich claims he first became aware that he had been suspended from the practice of law in 1997.
¶ 12. The referee found in favor of Attorney Polich on both of these counts.
¶ 13. Count one alleged a lack of diligence by Attorney Polich for missing the deadline to answer. The referee concluded that he had reason to believe that the deadline was actually longer than what was the case. The referee further concluded that the circumstances regarding the date when the answer really was due was "muddied" by the client trying to obtain new counsel around the time the answer was due. The referee stated:
Polich had no reason to be confident in his status as [the client's] counsel.... His client was not communicating with him directly.... He had not been con[274]*274tacted by successor counsel. He believed he had an agreement regarding an extension, but it was oral.... He may have believed that [the client] had replaced him .... Clearly, it would have been better for him, and his client, if such an [extension] agreement had been reduced to writing,....
¶ 14. The referee was apparently influenced by the fact that Attorney Polich paid a substantial sum in settlement of the malpractice claim, which the referee concluded remedied any injury suffered by the client. Under these "ambiguous circumstances," the referee concluded there had been no violation of count one.
¶ 15. Count seven was a related allegation that Attorney Polich lied to the OLR concerning whether he represented this client as of July 30 when the answer was due.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[267]*267PER CURIAM.
¶ 1. We review the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of Referee [268]*268Cheryl Rosen Weston for sanctions, pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1 Attorney Steve J. Polich was found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct in the course of his practice of law in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The referee recommended a public reprimand and payment of an unspecified proration of the costs.
¶ 2. We approve the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and determine that Attorney Polich's misconduct warrants a public reprimand. However, we disagree with the recommendation for a pro-ration of costs and conclude that Attorney Polich should pay the entire amount.
¶ 3. Attorney Polich was licensed to practice law in Wisconsin in 1982. He has had prior administrative suspensions in 1991 and 1993, both followed by reinstatement, for noncompliance with Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements.
¶ 4. This court adopts the referee's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Charlton, 174 Wis. 2d 844, 498 N.W.2d 380 (1993). No deference is granted to the referee's conclusions of law and they are reviewed de novo. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Norlin, 104 Wis. 2d 117, 310 N.W.2d 789 (1981). The court may impose whatever sanction it deems appropriate regardless of the referee's recommendation. In re Disciplinary Pro[269]*269ceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.
¶ 5. This case involves seven counts of alleged misconduct. Count one alleges a violation of SCR 20:1.32 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client). Counts two and three allege violations of SCR 20:3.33 (knowingly making a false statement of fact to a tribunal). Count four alleges a violation of SCR 20:7.5(a)4 [270]*270and SCR 20:7.1(a)5 (making a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services). Count five alleges a violation of SCR 31.10(1)6 and SCR [271]*27120:8.47 (engaging in the practice of law while State Bar membership is suspended for a CLE violation). Counts six and seven allege violations of SCR 22.03(6)8 (willfully failing to provide relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents, or to misrepresent a disclosure, all during the course of an Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) investigation).
[272]*272¶ 6. After several notices to report CLE compliance went unanswered, the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) sent Attorney Polich a notice of noncompliance via certified mail on April 7,1997. This informed him he would be automatically suspended from the State Bar unless BBE received his completed compliance forms by June 3, 1997. Attorney Polich apparently had earned the necessary credits but had simply failed to report them. However, he never complied and on June 4,1997, BBE sent him a notice of suspension via certified mail effective on that day. To date, Attorney Polich has never complied with the requirements for reinstatement.
¶ 7. Someone from Attorney Polich's office apparently knew that he was suspended because on March 22,1999, one of his employees contacted BBE to inquire about the reinstatement process. That prompted another letter from BBE to Attorney Polich the next day reiterating that he had been suspended.
¶ 8. Despite being suspended, Attorney Polich appeared in Wisconsin courts in ten cases between 1998 and 2001. One of these involved representation of a defendant in a Forest County Circuit Court civil action and forms the basis for counts one and seven.
¶ 9. The defendant was served with the summons and complaint on June 15,1998. Attorney Polich maintains that he had an oral agreement with the plaintiffs' original counsel that an answer did not have to be filed until some unspecified date in the future. However, Attorney Polich and his client had a parting of ways, apparently as the result of losing a temporary injunction proceeding on July 16. Attorney Polich claims he told his client to get new counsel but admits he never received confirmation that she indeed had done so until early September. Attorney Polich did not formally withdraw until September 10.
[273]*273¶ 10. In the meantime, contrary to his alleged understanding with plaintiffs' counsel, who had now been succeeded by new counsel with whom Attorney Polich had no understanding, the answer was actually due on July 30. Attorney Polich did not meet that deadline but claimed that within a few days thereafter it became apparent to him that the substitution of counsel had not formally occurred and he needed to file the answer, which he did on August 10.
¶ 11. This untimely answer was later struck and default judgment was taken against Attorney Polich's former client which she unsuccessfully tried to vacate. Attorney Polich gave the client and her new attorney an affidavit to support the effort to vacate the default judgment in which he asserted he was a Wisconsin licensed attorney. The client later sued Attorney Polich for malpractice and he paid $50,000 to settle. It was during the course of this malpractice action in 2001 that Attorney Polich claims he first became aware that he had been suspended from the practice of law in 1997.
¶ 12. The referee found in favor of Attorney Polich on both of these counts.
¶ 13. Count one alleged a lack of diligence by Attorney Polich for missing the deadline to answer. The referee concluded that he had reason to believe that the deadline was actually longer than what was the case. The referee further concluded that the circumstances regarding the date when the answer really was due was "muddied" by the client trying to obtain new counsel around the time the answer was due. The referee stated:
Polich had no reason to be confident in his status as [the client's] counsel.... His client was not communicating with him directly.... He had not been con[274]*274tacted by successor counsel. He believed he had an agreement regarding an extension, but it was oral.... He may have believed that [the client] had replaced him .... Clearly, it would have been better for him, and his client, if such an [extension] agreement had been reduced to writing,....
¶ 14. The referee was apparently influenced by the fact that Attorney Polich paid a substantial sum in settlement of the malpractice claim, which the referee concluded remedied any injury suffered by the client. Under these "ambiguous circumstances," the referee concluded there had been no violation of count one.
¶ 15. Count seven was a related allegation that Attorney Polich lied to the OLR concerning whether he represented this client as of July 30 when the answer was due. He had denied that he represented her at this time because it was his understanding that the client had obtained, or at least was trying to obtain, new counsel even though Attorney Polich never received a substitution of counsel.
¶ 16. The referee concluded that even though Attorney Polich had not yet formally withdrawn as the client's counsel at the time, he nonetheless could have legitimately believed that his services had been terminated. The referee concluded that Attorney Polich's statements to the OLR constituted "legitimate advocacy of an arguable legal position, to which reasonable persons could disagree" and could not be characterized as a misrepresentation.
¶ 17. Counts two, three and six relate to Attorney Polich's failure to file the necessary verification of his CLE credits.
¶ 18. Counts two and three, alleging intentional false statements, were resolved in favor of Attorney Polich. The referee accepted his defense that his office [275]*275administrative assistant had some mental impairment including memory lapses and failure to timely complete tasks. The referee also accepted his claim that he was personally unaware that his license had been suspended in 1997 until the malpractice action brought it to light in 2001 because the various notices and letters sent by BBE to his office were never brought to his personal attention.
¶ 19. The referee conceded that she was initially "highly skeptical" of this defense, particularly given that early in 2001 Polich had removed the statement "licensed in Wisconsin" from his letterhead. But she accepted his explanation that this change was simply due to a lawyer leaving his office and his decision to stop practicing in Wisconsin, rather than an admission that his license had been suspended. The referee noted there was no evidence from the OLR that anyone had personally communicated the suspension to Attorney Polich or had ever heard him make any admission against interest. The referee further noted that the client's new counsel in this case considered Attorney Polich's 2001 claim that this was the first he heard of the suspension to be truthful. The referee added:
If Attorney Polich's only failure was to file a required form, and this fact came to his attention prior to the filing of the grievance, what possible incentive could he have for not correcting this error ... I can think of no convincing explanation of his failure to fill out and mail a simple form other than the one he gave — that he thought it had been done.
¶ 20. Count six alleged that Attorney Polich had misrepresented to the OLR that he was unaware of his 1997 suspension. As with counts two and three, the referee concluded that OLR had not proved that Attorney Polich knew about the suspension prior to 2001. [276]*276Stating that the misrepresentation in SCR 22.03(6) requires deliberate behavior, the referee concluded there was no misconduct.
¶ 21. The only counts in which the OLR prevailed were four and five, both resolved by the referee on summary judgment prior to the hearing.
¶ 22. Count four alleged that Attorney Polich made a false and misleading communication about himself by using office letterhead in 1998 and thereafter that indicated that he was licensed to practice law in Wisconsin. The referee concluded that since Attorney Polich had clearly received notice of his suspension, even though he may not personally have been aware of it, the office letterhead was per se false and misleading.
¶ 23. Count five alleged that Attorney Polich improperly engaged in the practice of law during the period his license was suspended, which he conceded.
¶ 24. In support of the recommendation for a public reprimand for the violation of counts four and five, the referee referred to several cases in which either a private or public reprimand was given for a similar situation involving practice during a CLE suspension. The referee noted that the only case that apparently resulted in a suspension where practice during CLE noncompliance was present, In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ditter, 187 Wis. 2d 337, 523 N.W.2d 105 (1994), involved an attorney who intentionally refused to accept notices of suspension and who never had the requisite number of CLE credits. The referee further noted that there were other cases resulting in suspensions where practice during a CLE suspension was involved but all of those involved additional unrelated counts.
[277]*277¶ 25. We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the referee with respect to all of these counts. Like the referee, we agree with the referee that portions of Attorney Polich's defense are susceptible to skepticism. However, the referee was best situated to judge his credibility and that of the other witnesses. There is no indication that the referee's findings of fact that support her conclusions of law are clearly erroneous.
¶ 26. We are troubled by Attorney Polich's repeated failures to comply with his CLE requirements. There is no excuse for an attorney to fail to comply with the simple reporting requirement, much less to do so three times. Further, his failure to assume personal responsibility for assuring that the most basic requirement for an attorney in this state is met — active State Bar membership — is inexcusable.
¶ 27. We are also concerned about Attorney Polich's representation of his client, which can be characterized as negligent, if not actually misconduct. The malpractice settlement he paid his client is ample warning of the cost of such negligence.
¶ 28. We conclude that the public reprimand recommended by the referee is appropriate discipline in this case.
¶ 29. However, we do not agree that the OLR's costs should be prorated to reflect that Attorney Polich prevailed on five of the seven counts against him. Although we have the discretion to apportion costs pursuant to SCR 22.24(1),9 we have traditionally not done so. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings [278]*278Against Pangman, 216 Wis. 2d 440, 574 N.W.2d 232 (1998); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Preloznik, 169 Wis. 2d 137, 485 N.W.2d 249 (1992).
¶ 30. There is no indication that the costs incurred by the OLR in this matter were unreasonable and unnecessary. Nor is there any indication that the five counts on which Attorney Polich prevailed could reasonably be deemed to have been without prosecuto-rial merit. Accordingly, the circumstances before us do not warrant departure from the practice of assessing full costs against an attorney found to have engaged in at least some of the alleged professional misconduct.
¶ 31. IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Steve J. Polich is publicly remanded for his misconduct.
¶ 32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order Attorney Steve J. Polich shall pay $17,498.87 to the OLR representing the costs of this proceeding. If these costs are not paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to this court of an inability to pay those costs within that time, the license of Attorney Polich to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended indefinitely until further order of the court.