2008 WI 3
|
Supreme Court of |
|
|
|
|
Case No.: |
2006AP1036-D |
|
Complete Title: |
|
|
|
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stephen M. Compton, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant-Respondent, v. Stephen M. Compton, Respondent-Appellant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DISCIPLINARY
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST |
|
|
|
|
Opinion Filed: |
January 16, 2008 |
|
Submitted on Briefs: |
||
Oral Argument: |
||
|
|
|
Source of Appeal: |
|
|
|
Court: |
|
|
County: |
|
|
Judge: |
|
|
|
|
Justices: |
|
|
|
Concurred: |
|
|
Dissented: |
|
|
Not Participating: |
|
|
|
|
Attorneys: |
|
2008 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.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review referee Kim M. Peterson's recommendation that the license of Attorney Stephen M. Compton to practice law in this state be suspended for a period of 60 days due to his professional misconduct.
¶2 We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are supported by
satisfactory and convincing evidence. We
further determine that the seriousness of Attorney Compton's misconduct
warrants the suspension of his license to practice law for 60 days and that the
costs of the proceeding, which are $4,622.69 as of January 24, 2007, should be assessed against him.
¶3 Attorney
¶4 When
the events giving rise to this disciplinary proceeding occurred, part of
Attorney Compton's practice included representing criminal defendants by
appointment of the Office of the State Public Defender.
¶5 In the fall of 2000 Attorney Compton was appointed to represent
J.M. in proceedings before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. J.M. was ultimately
incarcerated at the Dodge County Correctional Institution. In late 2001 or early 2002, while
incarcerated, J.M., a former paralegal, informed Attorney Compton that he would
be interested in doing legal research work for Attorney Compton. In January 2002 Attorney Compton made
arrangements whereby J.M. would perform legal research for him. Attorney
¶6 Upon J.M.'s release from prison in May 2002, Attorney Compton hired J.M. as a paralegal. From May 2002 to July 2002, J.M. worked on a number of case files for Attorney Compton. He performed legal research, drafted correspondence, memos and pleadings, and met with clients.
¶7 The billing policies of the Office of the State Public Defender require that an appointed attorney submit bills for reimbursement for "reasonable hours" the attorney has spent working on client matters to which they have been appointed as counsel. The policies provide further that work done by another attorney will not be reimbursed unless specifically approved by the Office of the State Public Defender.
¶8 Despite this policy, Attorney Compton billed the Office of the State Public Defender for approximately 120 hours of work for legal services on various client matters when the work was actually performed by J.M. In three cases, Attorney Compton falsely certified to the Office of the State Public Defender that he had done all the legal work on the cases, when in fact J.M. had done much of the work.
¶9 J.M.'s work on Office of the State Public Defender case files was discovered when successor counsel in one matter reviewed a client's file and ascertained that J.M. had performed considerable work on the file.
¶10 In July 2004 the Office of the State Public Defender and Attorney Compton entered into a settlement agreement wherein Attorney Compton acknowledged wrongfully billing the Office of the State Public Defender for work actually performed by J.M. He agreed to be decertified from the appointment list maintained by the Office of the State Public Defender, and further agreed that the Office of the State Public Defender could recoup $4,800 from bills submitted by Attorney Compton on outstanding cases. He self-reported this matter to the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) in August 2004.
¶11 On May 1, 2006, the OLR issued a complaint alleging the misconduct
described herein. On November 1, 2006,
the parties executed a stipulation and no contest plea. Attorney
¶12 The referee concluded that by billing the Office of the State Public Defender for 120 hours of work at the appointed attorney rate when that work was actually performed by J.M., Attorney Compton engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of former SCR 20:8.4(c).[1] The referee concluded further that by failing to adequately supervise J.M. while J.M. was performing legal work from prison, Attorney Compton violated SCR 20:5.3(a) and (b), which provided in relevant part:
20:5.3 Responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants
With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer:
(a) A partner in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer;
(b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer.
¶13 Most of the discussion at the disciplinary hearing was devoted to
the appropriate sanction for Attorney Compton's misconduct. The OLR requested the referee recommend a
90-day suspension. Attorney
¶14 The referee noted that it was troubling that Attorney Compton had
engaged in this misconduct while he was negotiating his public reprimand in
another disciplinary matter, a time when he should have been "extra
vigilant." However, while not
excusing the ethical violation or the potential harm to clients, the referee
did note that J.M., a former paralegal, apparently performed competently and
obtained "good results" for the clients. Ultimately, the referee concluded that a
60-day suspension was warranted, along with the payment of the costs of the
disciplinary proceeding. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Glesner, 2000 WI
18, 233
¶15 In his appeal, which he has since dismissed, Attorney Compton sought to distinguish his situation from Glesner and Davison, asserting that he never intended to deceive the Office of the State Public Defender and maintaining that his intentions were good. He self-reported the violation and has advised this court that he ceased practicing law as of August 1, 2007. He asks the court to impose any suspension retroactive to August 1, 2007.
¶16 The matter is submitted to the court for review of the referee's report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).[2]
¶17 In conducting our
review, we will affirm the referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly
erroneous. See In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sosnay, 209
¶18 The referee's findings of fact in this case have not been shown to
be clearly erroneous, and we adopt them.
We also agree with the referee's conclusions of law. We further agree with the referee's
recommendation for a 60-day suspension of Attorney Compton's license to
practice law in
¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Stephen M. Compton to practice
law in
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this
order, Stephen M. Compton pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of
this proceeding. If the costs are not
paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to this court of his
inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of Stephen M. Compton
to practice law in
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not yet done so, Stephen M. Compton comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.
[1] Effective
July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to the Wisconsin Supreme Court
Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20. See Supreme Court Order No. 04-07,
2007 WI 4, 293
Former 20:8.4(c) states that it is misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."
[2] As noted, Attorney Compton initially filed an appeal from the referee's report and recommendation and appellate briefs were submitted by Attorney Compton and the OLR. On August 17, 2007, Attorney Compton filed a letter voluntarily dismissing his appeal. Accordingly, this matter is treated as a review of the referee's report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).